Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill originating in the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (PROTECTION).

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that, having regard to the information furnished by the hon. Member for South-East Leeds by letter, dated 24th May, the arrangements made for the defence of the War Office are, at all times, adequate against every form of enemy activity?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): Yes, Sir.

Major Milner: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us that it is sufficient during certain hours, at one entrance to the War Office, for only one policeman to be on duty?

Captain Margesson: I do not want to go into details of the protection afforded at the War Office against possible unwanted intruders, but I have looked into this matter, and that is why I gave the answer I did.

Major Milner: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give me, confidentially, the information on this matter, because it is one of considerable concern, and I am far from satisfied?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Captain Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider a complete reconstruction of the Ministry of Information?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): This matter is to be debated on an early day, when a statement will be made on behalf of the Government.

Captain Lyons: Till it is debated can the Prime Minister say whether, in view of the lack of effort that is being made, he himself will see whether some real reorganisation can be introduced?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have not been able to keep outside of this discussion.

Mr. Granville: In view of the possibility of a change of Business this week, will the Prime Minister not wait until the Debate on propaganda before making any announcement of contemplated changes in the Ministry of Information?

The Prime Minister: Will my hon. Friend not wait until he hears the arrangements?

FORMS (MANUFACTURERS)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the great amount of time spent by manufacturers in filling up forms issued by the various Government Departments; and will he see whether it is possible to reduce the demands in this direction by co-ordination?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that the various schemes of Government control entail the completion of a large number of forms by manufacturers, but I have not heard of any unnecessary duplication. If the hon. Member will inform me in what instances he thinks there is lack of co-ordination, I will gladly have the matter examined.

Sir. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that various Government Departments are asking for similar information through different channels at practically the same time, and can he assure the House that the best use is being made of the information received?

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Member had better let me have instances, because it is a question of Government co-ordination and is not purely a Treasury affair.

PREMISES (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in requisitioning premises for State purposes, he will cause prior inquiry to be made as to the volume of unavoidable charges payable by the tenant on the building thus requisitioned; and whether such charges, at least, will be met by the State in taking over the premises compulsorily?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Before premises are requisitioned for official purposes, inquiries are made as to their suitability in various respects and consideration is given to the amount of compensation likely to be payable; but it would be impracticable to delay the taking of possession pending investigation of the exact charges payable by tenants. By unavoidable charges I presume the hon. Member refers to rent, rates and services. The rent, if reasonable, is covered by the compensation payable under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and the Department endeavours to relieve the tenant of liability for rates and services from the date the premises are taken over. If he pays a rent inclusive of rates and services, there is an adjustment with the landlord with a view to his being relieved of such charges. If for any reason this is impracticable, the tenant's claim for compensation would cover rates and services. There are other charges which arise in connection with the requisitioning of premises, e.g., cost of telephones, wages of staff, etc. Allowances are made under Section 2 (1) (d) towards the cost incurred in cancelling arrangements under this head.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that no tenant will be out of pocket?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot guarantee that.

Sir William Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when property is taken in the ordinary way it is taken with all its liabilities attached to it? If there are liabilities attached to a property taken by the Government, surely the Government should make arrangements with the persons to whom the liabilities are payable or due and not leave it to the unfortunate tenant whose property is taken?

Mr. Hicks: Every endeavour is made.

Mr. Levy: Is the Minister aware that, although tenants are deprived of beneficial occupation, they are still liable for the rent, and that, in a number of cases where buildings have been requisitioned more than once, the tenants have been deprived of beneficial occupation more than once, and are still liable for both rents? Does the Minister consider it fair that such arrangements should be made?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is it not a fact that when premises are requisitioned by the War Office the rents paid by the occupier or owner are not covered by the War Office?

Sir W. Davison: I have given a number of cases where a person is having to pay £50, £60 or £100 more than he is receiving from the people who have taken his property.

Sir Irving Albery: Will the Prime Minister ask the Attorney-General to look into the question?

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (STAFF).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare how many persons are now employed on the staff of his Department?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): The number on 1st June was 1,209.

Mr. Culverwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think this enormous staff necessary in view of the fact that Germany is in occupation of practically the whole of Europe?

Mr. Dalton: I do not regard the staff as enormous. Recent developments have necessitated an increase of the staff, which has to be set against reductions


made in other directions. I would mention, for instance, a considerable increase in recent months in the development of shipping control as a weapon of economic warfare, and the establishment of a surpluses department under Sir F. Leith Ross. There has also been a large increase in the number of navicerts since the Government made these compulsory, and finally a large and very welcome increase in the amount of intelligence material handled in the Ministry of Economic Warfare.

Sir I. Albery: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the importance of a Government Department is denoted by the number of personnel?

Mr. Dalton: No, I do not say that.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that this is one of the most efficient Departments in the whole of the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that letters from Stalag XXI D state that this camp is underground, with primitive sanitation, and so verminous that constant requests are made for insect powder and whether the inspecting authorities report that any improvement has been made?

Captain Margesson: As has been stated in answer to previous Questions, the latest reports show that there has been a definite improvement in the conditions at this camp since British officers were first moved there. In spite of these improvements, however, there is, unfortunately, little doubt that the standard of accommodation is not in accordance with the provisions of the Prisoners of War Convention, and the most emphatic representations have been addressed to the German Government through the Protecting Power

Sir A. Knox: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I. have a letter, dated 24th March, from a young officer at this camp, who states that there are 26 officers in a room 30ft. by 16ft. and that five sleep in a single bed?

Captain Margesson: Conditions have improved since that date, but, as I have said, I am not at all satisfied with the

accommodation provided. It is not in accordance with the Prisoners of War Convention, and for that reason a strong protest has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME GUARD.

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds an officer commanding a Home Guard zone, when travelling in uniform on duty, is accorded only a third-class railway warrant when his adjutant, a junior officer of the Army, travelling on the same duty and on the same train, is accorded a first-class warrant: why, when in order to save petrol he travels by railway, he is not even allowed to pay the difference out of his own pocket for a first-class fare; and whether he is aware that it is prejudicial to military discipline to permit such an anomalous position between a senior officer and his junior?

Captain Margesson: As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden) on 17th June, it is an accepted principle in the Home Guard that officers and other ranks should be treated alike as regards financial privileges. I do not consider that the present practice whereby officers in the Home Guard are given third-class warrants can seriously be regarded as prejudicial to military discipline. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. So far as I am aware, there is no reason why members of the Home Guard should not make up at their own expense the difference between the third-class fare at military rates and the first-class fare at ordinary public rates, if they so desire.

SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War why J. K. Wallace, a British-born subject of alien parents, who enlisted in the 340th Company, 35th Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Royal Engineers, Territorial Association, 1st Surrey Rifles, on or about 26th September, 1938, was sent to Nutley, Sussex, and, on 2nd October, 1938, was granted indefinite leave subject to 24 hours' notice of recall, was verbally discharged early in 1939; why this man, having returned his equipment and having been in the pay of the


Army, received no discharge papers; and will he take steps to see that this man lies no longer under the suspicion of having been discharged from the Army for improper conduct?

Captain Margesson: I am having inquiries made into this; case, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir R. Young: May I remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that in making these inquiries I have a copy of the notification of leave of absence?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

VISCOUNT GORT'S DESPATCHES.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any alteration in the date of the publication of Lord Gort's Despatches?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. Since informing my hon. and gallant Friend on 6th May that Lord Gort's Despatches would be published in the middle of June, I have given very anxious and careful consideration to the date on which publication should take place. I have now come to the conclusion that the present is not an opportune moment, and as a consequence publication will be postponed for the time being.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that no authentic account of these operations has ever been published, and does he not consider that in justice to the troops who were engaged some account of their exploits and feats ought to be published? Is there any special reason why the Despatches should not be published?

Captain Margesson: I did not consider, after very careful consideration, that the present was an opportune moment for the publication of Lord Gort's Despatches, but I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and when the moment is opportune the Despatches will be published.

Mr. Bellenger: Were not all these considerations taken into account when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made his original statement that these Despatches would be published? Has the situation so altered in the meantime as to induce him to make the change he has made?

Captain Margesson: Broadly speaking, I think that is so. Every consideration was given to this matter when I made my statement, but times do change, and I have looked into the matter from the broadest aspect.

Mr. Lawson: Is not the Minister aware that a good many people were of the opinion that when he made his statement on the Army Estimates it was premature and dangerous?

DERBY DAY (MILITARY VEHICLES).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that military vehicles taking part in military exercises on Derby Day were impeded in a traffic jam; and what steps were taken to prevent this?

Captain Margesson: I have seen reports in the Press that vehicles taking part in military exercises were held up by traffic congestion on the roads near Newmarket. No military exercises were in fact held in the Newmarket area on the day in question, and I have been unable to discover any foundation for these reports.

OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial officers since the outbreak of war, have been promoted to the rank of general; and also, how many temporary officer shave reached the same rank?

Captain Margesson: One Territorial Army officer has been promoted to the temporary rank of lieutenant-general since the outbreak of war and five Territorial Army officers have been promoted to the acting or local rank of major-general. Three temporary officers have been promoted to the acting or local rank of major-general.

Sir P. Harris: Can the Minister say how this compares with the number of officers promoted in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand contingents?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that Question.

ACTIVE OPERATIONS (UNITS, MENTION).

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his permission for the mention of specific names of regiments engaged in fighting and the


heartening effect that these announcements have had on public opinion, it will be possible to include the Regular, yeomanry and mechanised cavalry regiments by name in precisely the same way as that adopted in connection with other branches of the service?

Captain Margesson: As I have stated on previous occasions, I am anxious to make public as much information as possible regarding units taking part in active operations, provided that no assistance is thereby afforded to the enemy. As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, the mention of individual cavalry regiments raises rather different problems from the mention of the names of infantry regiments as a result of their different organisation, but I am looking into this aspect of the question further and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Major Peto: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the continuous withholding of the individuality of certain regiments is having a very depressing effect on officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men? They think there is a general feeling against the retention of individuality by cavalry regiments.

Captain Margesson: I am a cavalry officer myself—or, at least, I was—andI cannot believe that any officer, warrant officer or other rank would really wish information which would be of assistance to the enemy to be given away. As I have said, I am looking into the matter further to see whether we can make some improvement.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Major Milner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether all members pf the Territorial Army were medically examined on mobilisation and, if not, for what reasons; and whether medical examination has been omitted in respect of any other and what classes of men in the Army?

Captain Margesson: The Regulations for the mobilisation of the Territorial Army provide that officers and men of the Territorial Army should undergo a preliminary medical inspection on the first day of mobilisation, and a detailed medical examination as soon as possible after

embodiment. All other classes of Army personnel are medically examined on enlistment, with the exception of members of the National Defence Companies who were not medically examined on enlistment in peace but should have been examined on embodiment. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any individual in whose case medical examination was for any reason omitted, I shall be glad to look into it.

Major Milner: Is it not a fact that Territorials were not medically examined in accordance with that regulation, and has it not caused difficulty in connection with pensions and other matters?

Captain Margesson: I am not aware of that point. I understood that men of the Territorial Army were medically examined in the same way as others, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any case in mind, I will gladly look into it.

Major Milner: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my Question, which was whether they have or have not been examined?

Captain Margesson: I was unaware that the regulation had been broken, and that is why I answered the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question in that way.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEER, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the practice of Scottish farmers and flockmasters to regard deer as vermin, destructive of crops and productive of disease amongst sheep; what steps are now being taken to deal with this menace; whether instructions have been issued to County Agricultural Executive Committees; and who is responsible for seeing that these instructions are complied with?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Yes, Sir. Deer on agricultural land are regarded as harmful to crops and pasture. As explained to my hon. Friend in reply to his Question of 27th May, occupiers of agricultural holdings in Scotland are empowered to take and kill deer found on any arable, garden, or grassland forming part of the holding, and Agricultural Executive Committees may authorise the killing of deer on any land for the purpose of preventing damage to crops. My right hon. Friend


is responsible for seeing that the powers delegated to Agricultural Executive Committees are properly exercised and detailed instructions on the subject were issued on 3rd November, 1939.

Mr. Mathers: May we have a general assurance that the transference of land from deer forests to agricultural purposes, and the ridding of the land of deer, is being actively pursued?

Mr. Westwood: I can give that assurance. In the year 1940–41, there have already been destroyed 22,000 deer.

Earl Winterton: May I ask whether some of the venison can be sent for sale in the South of England, where it would be very much desired as food in the months of September and October?

Mr. Westwood: I will look into that matter, but I cannot give a guarantee at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUPPLIES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary for Mines what steps he is taking to improve the supplies of coal at medium prices for household use in West Lothian and the Edinburgh district; and whether he will arrange that less of this type of coal will be commandeered by priority measures for stocking for future use while householders go short?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The supply of coal for all purposes in Scotland will not equal the full demand for consumption and stocking purposes unless there is a substantial improvement in output. The requirements of essential industrial and transport undertakings must be met even if this involves the diversion of coal from other uses and the only solution to the problem lies in the increased output for which I am appealing.

Mr. Mathers: Would it be possible for the Minister to ensure that when priority orders have been given effect to, they will not completely cut off the supplies of household coal, and with regard to output may we have an assurance that we shall have his assistance in getting men back to the mines when they want to return, for example, from the Army?

Mr. Grenfell: With regard to the first point, I can give that assurance, but it may be that later on there will be announced a limitation of supplies. With regard to the second point, I am not to determine where the men come from, but I maintain the view that the men who have gone away from the mining industry will have to return if we are to get the necessary output.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements stated by the Minister of Labour in his broadcast recently will serve to meet the needs of the coming winter?

Mr. Grenfell: Certainly.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the difficulties experienced by the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Electricity Company in replenishing their reserve stocks of coal; and whether, since factories and works engaged in essential production rely on this company for their supplies of electricity, he will get into touch with the Central Electricity Board in order that steps may be taken to avoid the possibility of a curtailment of supply to these users?

Mr. Grenfell: I understand that this electricity company have hitherto drawn their current from the main grid supply of the Central Electricity Board. Steps are being taken to improve the coal stocks held by grid stations, and I have no reason to believe that these are in any danger of failure or curtailment of supply through shortage of coal. The position at the company's new station, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, is that there is already a substantial tonnage of coal in stock, and the necessary steps will be taken to provide the supplies required when the station comes into operation.

ORGANISATION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he is prepared, as an essential measure for increasing coal production, to end the present county basis of organisation and deal with the coal industry as a national industry;
(2) what reasons the mine-owners gave for opposing a national board for the coal industry, and for their determination to keep the industry organised on a county basis?

Mr. Grenfell: The Government's position in this matter was clearly stated by the President of the Board of Trade to the Executive Committee of the Mine-workers' Federation on 30th April, as follows:
The Government regard the subject of rates of wages as a matter for negotiation under the existing machinery, and could therefore not agree to introduce legislation which would compel the establishment of a national board.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that in the discussion on the Essential Work Order the Minister of Labour asked the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) whether he would assist the Ministry in getting transference placed on a national basis instead of a county basis, and is not the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend had to make that request because the mine-owners refused to have this great industry treated as a national industry.

Mr. Grenfell: I was not in the House when that Question was put to the hon. Member for Ince, but I have read the report of it. I do not think the two matters are closely related, and I am sure they are not related in the way that the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I asked him whether it is not the case that this is the only major industry—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not put the same question twice.

Mr. Gallacher: With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the same question. Is it not the case that this is the only major industry in the country that is on a county basis, and is it not the Government's responsibility to put an end to that disastrous position?

Mr. Grenfell: There are organisations representing both sides, and it is for them to make an approach to any changes in the wage structure in the industry.

Mr. Thorne: Does the Minister recognise that a serious position will occur three months from now, more especially in connection with gas works and electricity works?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the county scheme, statements have been made in South Yorkshire during the past three days that

men placed on emergency work are paid at the rate of only 7s. 6d. a shift, and therefore, lose at least is. 9d. on the basic rate?

Mr. Speaker: That Supplementary Question goes far beyond the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACE MEETINGS (MOTOR CARS).

Captain Lyons: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he has now received the results of the survey and check of petrol-driven vehicles assembled at, or used in connection with, the race meeting at Newmarket on 18th June; and what are the estimated numbers?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The information from the check is now being examined in my Department, but the subsequent inquiries must obviously take some time.

Captain Lyons: Does my hon. Frend realise that the Battle of the Atlantic has not been suspended during this leisurely inquiry, and will he take some steps to end this gross public scandal forthwith?

Mr. Lloyd: This campaign has been going on for months, not at one meeting, but at meetings all over the country.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were more motor cars at Newmarket this year than in any other year?

Mr. Leach: Has the Minister any idea of the amount of public irritation his inaction in this matter is causing?

Captain Lyons: Will my hon. Friend pay some regard to public feeling?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINION HIGH COMMISSIONERS(WAR MEETINGS).

Mr. Granville: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the policy of his Department to hold regular meetings of the High Commissioners representing the Dominion Governments in London for the purpose of discussing matters affecting day-to-day consideration of war policy?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. It has long been the practice for the Secretary of State for Dominion


Affairs to meet Dominion High Commissioners either individually or jointly, more especially for the purpose of keeping them in touch with developments in foreign affairs and the war situation. Since the beginning of the war such meetings have generally been held daily and sometimes more than once a day.

Mr. Granville: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend attends meetings of the War Cabinet, and also whether this routine machinery continues during visits to this country of Dominion Prime Ministers?

Mr. Shakespeare: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that my noble Friend attends meetings of the War Cabinet, and as regards the second part, the meetings of High Commissioners continue in spite of the presence of Dominion Prime Ministers in this country.

Mr. Granville: Will the Minister take steps to bring this machinery up to date in order to meet the needs of modern war?

Mr. Shakespeare: That raises another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE ACT (CHATTELS SCHEME).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of claims in respect of which payments have been made under the chattels scheme of the War Damage Act; and the aggregate sum so far paid?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: Has anybody yet had an ordinary payment under the chattels scheme?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot say offhand what payments have been made. I should like to have notice of that Question.

Sir H. Williams: Surely my right hon. Friend knows whether his scheme is working?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer now.

Sir H. Williams: Am I to gather that no human being has yet had a copper out of this scheme?

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the amount of premiums received from the scheme of personal chattels, war damage, up to 15th June, 1941; and whether any steps are being taken to speed up acknowledgments?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot at present state separately the amount received in premiums under the private chattels scheme. The aggregate amount received both under that scheme and under the business scheme up to 15th June was £12,847,500. As regards the second part of the Question, the application is usually acknowledged by the issue of a combined form of receipt and policy. I realise that owing to printing difficulties there has in some cases been delay in getting these out, but the issue of the forms is now proceeding as rapidly as the available staff of the Board's agents permits In the meantime all persons whose premiums have been received are held covered.

Sir R. Blair: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible? Is it the Board of Trade?

Mr. Lyttelton: The insurance companies act as our agent, but it is our responsibility.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not possible to state the amounts received? What is the difficulty in giving this information?

Mr. Lyttelton: I said I did not know.

Mr. Ammon: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say it was not in the public interest?

Mr. Buchanan: Where forms are not available, but where the agent of a society has accepted the payment of a premium, will the right hon. Gentleman see that in those cases payments cover the insurance?

Mr. Lyttelton: In that case the insurer is covered.

Mr. Ammon: What is the difficulty in stating the amount, and where is there a danger to national security in giving it?

Mr. Lyttelton: Firstly, it would be against the public interest, because it


would show the amount of damage caused to chattels by enemy action, and the second matter, dealing with the total amount of the premiums received, is an entirely different subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances which compel miners to have a working kit entirely distinct from their other clothes, he will exempt from rationing miners' moleskin trousers, pit boots and shirts?

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties being caused to ironmoulders by the curtailment, by coupons, of their supply of moleskin trousers; and whether he is prepared to make special arrangements for special clothes required for productive work?

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow miners' working boots, clothes, helmets and safety gloves to be purchased without surrendering coupons?

Mr. Lyttelton: Discussions are now proceeding with the Trades Union Congress about provision under the clothing rationing scheme for special occupational needs.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give particular attention to this matter, in view of the fact that these men have to have this special clothing?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there is any likelihood of anybody wearing moleskin trousers for pleasure?

Mr. Culverwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow the white drill coats used by medical and dental students, nurses, workers in laboratories, shop assistants and others to be sold without coupons?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend's suggestion is being considered as part of the general question of special occupational needs, on which discussions are proceeding.

Mr. Culverwell: Cannot special provision be made for these people?

Mr. Lyttelton: The principle is agreed, but it is a question of securing a definition.

Mrs. Hardie: Will the President of the Board of Trade consider reducing the number of coupons for ladies' stockings which are part of a business woman's working clothes?

Mr. Lyttelton: That hardly arises out of this Question.

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for articles required by British prisoners of war to be purchased by their relatives without surrender of coupons, or for coupons for the purpose being supplied additionally upon application?

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange to issue free coupons to enable relations to send clothing to prisoners of war in Germany?

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the anxiety caused to the next of kin of prisoners of war in not being able to obtain coupons to send clothing to their relatives in prisoners of war camps; and whether he will make a statement on this matter, especially as the British Red Cross Society are unable to give any guidance to enquirers?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am glad to say that arrangements have been now made with the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John to enable relatives and others to send clothing and footwear in their quarterly parcels to prisoners of war. The senders must use their own coupons, or those of their family, for the purchase of any new articles, but, on receipt of the parcels at the packing centre, coupons will be returned to them in replacement.

Sir W. Davison: Will leaflets be published showing exactly the procedure when an individual sends a parcel to a relative?

Mr. Mathers: Will the B.B.C. give publicity to this matter?

Sir I. Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to facilitate the renewal of uniform clothing by members of the mercantile marine, he


can arrange that the necessary coupons can be obtained through one of the ship's officers, in view of the limited amount of time and facilities often at the disposal of members of the mercantile marine?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid that it would not be practicable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Officers and men of the Merchant Navy can, however, get permits for clothing quickly and conveniently from the mercantile marine offices which are situated at all ports.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that there is some quicker method for issuing clothes to people who have lost their own clothes at sea? Is he aware that the amount of compensation granted will not be sufficient to recoup people who have lost clothes?

Mr. Lyttelton: The machinery we have devised is the quickest possible, but if there are any special cases where the return of coupons has bean insufficient, I shall be glad to look into it.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the arrangement whereby persons who have had articles of clothing destroyed by enemy action can replace those articles free of coupons is to be of universal application, or whether it is to be restricted to certain sections of the community?

Mr. Lyttelton: The facilities for the supply of extra coupons to enable the replacement of essential clothing and footwear lost by enemy action are of general application.

Mr. Gary: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow each person to buy, within a limited period of the next three months, one hard-wearing working suit or dress without the obligation of giving coupons in exchange?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FIRM'S MISSION, AMERICA.

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any report to make on the progress of the mission undertaken by Mr. Israel Moses Sief, who was granted an exit permit on

12th August, 1940, to enable him to travel to the United States of America and Canada for the purpose of developing export trade from the United Kingdom to the United States of America and Canada?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I understand that very considerable orders have been received for delivery to the United States.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the period for which this exit permit was granted?

Mr. Lyttelton: It is not an official mission. It is merely an exit permit for business purposes, and so long as business continues to be on a satisfactory scale Mr. Sief will remain in the United States.

Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand that Mr. Sief is not in the United States on behalf of any Department of the Government?

Mr. Lyttelton: Mr. Sief is there as a representative of his firm and not of the Government.

EXPORTS TO TURKEY.

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Combined Products, Limited, applied, in October, 1940, for a licence to export to Turkey 3,000 boxes of tin-plates needed by a company who are agents for the Turkish Government, and that this licence was repeatedly refused; that United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, in February, 1941, urged Combined Products, Limited to fulfil their contract, but, despite this, the Board of Trade continued to refuse an export licence, and this order was, in effect, executed by the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation; and if he will state why a licence was granted to the corporation which was refused to the company?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not completed my inquiries into this matter, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have done so.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not desirable to exercise great caution in exporting commodities to Turkey in view of the state of neutrality that country has assumed, and having regard, in particular. to the recent pact between Turkey and Germany?

Mr. Lyttelton: All exports have to be scrutinised in these times, but the Question on the Order Paper refers to some time ago.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister indicate when he will be in a position to furnish the information, so that I can re-table the Question?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — GALLOWAY HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKING.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industries have been started in the district served by the Galloway hydro-electric scheme; and how many are supplied with electric power from that scheme?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not complete information on this subject, but I understand that three industries using electric power have been established in the district referred to.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister answer the latter part of my Question?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid I have not that information.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Minister get that information as speedily as possible?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will attempt to do so. I would point out, however, that the scheme sends all its supplies to the Central Electricity Board under the grid system and does not supply retail power. Therefore I think the Question is unanswerable.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that it supplies factories, not retail firms, but production factories?

Mr. Lyttelton: I was trying to point out that the scheme sends its supplies to the Central Electricity Board and does not retail power.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: How many people are employed in the three industries in Inverness?

Mr. Lyttelton: I could not answer that Question without notice.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the rate charged by the Galloway hydroelectric undertaking for electricity supplied as power to industries served in that district and the rate charged for lighting purposes to shops and houses; and how the Galloway rate compares with the electricity rates charged to power and household consumers by the corporations of Glsagow and Newcastle-on-Tyne?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): The whole of the output of the Galloway hydro-electric undertaking is sold to the Central Electricity Board for the purposes of the National Grid System, and no retail supplies to power or other consumers are provided by the Galloway Company.

Mr. Maclean: What are the rates charged by the central supply?

Colonel Llewellin: The Question refers to the Galloway Company, and all the electricity it. produces is sold to the National Grid. They do not retail at all.

Mr. Maclean: At what price is it sold to the national system?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not know that. I understood the hon. Member to refer to the price to the general consumer. I will look into the other point.

Mr. Maclean: Who renders accounts to the consumers in the district? Is it the Central Electricity Board or the Galloway Company?

Colonel Llewellin: I must have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARITIME APPEAL COURTS, ALLIED POWERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping which of the Allied Powers proposes to set up appeal courts under the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Act, and where they will sit?

Colonel Llewellin: Up to date, from information received informally, it appears likely that the Belgian, Norwegian and Polish Governments will establish appeal courts. They will probably all be situated in London.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPHYARDS

Major Milner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping how many shipyards, unused prior to the war, have since been brought into use; and how many of such shipyards still remain unused?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on 10th December. The reasons then given for withholding the detailed information requested are not less valid at the present time.

Major Milner: Is it not the case that there is quite a number of shipyards that are quite incapable of being used at the present moment? Why is that? Has the Chairman of the National Shipbuilders Security anything to do with it?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. The latter part of the question is not the case.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Does the Minister deny that there are not in fact 17 shipyards fully equipped and not being utilised?

Sir V. Warrender: If I were to deny or accept that, I should be doing just what I am trying not to do.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister inquire into the position of the utilisation of these shipyards with a view to the advancement of shipbuilding in this country?

Sir V. Warrender: Every possibility of increasing the shipbuilding capacity of this country has been and is consistently being inquired into.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern in this country, not only in the ranks of the workers, but among the employers, concerning this matter? Is it receiving the attention it deserves in view of the feeling in the country?

Sir V. Warrender: It is certainly receiving the attention it deserves, and I have no doubt the point will be made perfectly clear during the shipping Debate.

Mr. Maclean: Have any yards been brought into production since the Minister answered my Question almost a year ago,

when he said it was not in the public interest to speak of these things?

Sir V. Warrender: I am sorry, but I really cannot answer these questions. To do so would be doing exactly what I am trying to avoid, that is, to answer these questions in detail in public.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister cannot answer these questions.

Mr. Maclean: Then why cannot he answer them in private and let Members who represent shipbuilding constituencies know what is going on?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICINAL HERBS.

Mr. Parker: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether, when a warning was given to the Forestry Commission two years ago about a shortage of medicinal herbs, the Commission concerned itself with the production of such herbs in suitable areas under its control?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The powers and duties conferred or imposed on, or transferred to the Forestry Commissioners by the Forestry Acts do not include the production of medicinal herbs. Consequently the Commission has not concerned itself with such production.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS (FIRE PREVENTION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether it is intended to make the protection of our ports against enemy action a stabilised national service in place of the existing practice of entrusting this to port authority personnel with the local authorities concerned?

Colonel Llewellin: I assume my hon. Friend refers to fire prevention. Although the dock authorities will remain responsible for fire prevention on all premises in their area, arrangements are in hand to secure better co-ordination between these authorities and the local and national services.

Mr. Adams: If I send the right hon. and gallant Gentleman particulars of certain ports where the proposals contained


in the Question might profitably be adopted, will he look into them?

Colonel Llewellin: I shall be glad to have them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY (METAL STUDS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in view of the greater visibility, particularly in black-out periods, and economy in the maintenance of metal studs over white-painted traffic lines, it is intended to recommend the gradual use of these throughout the country?

Colonel Llewellin: Highway authorities are encouraged to make use of metal studs with reflecting lenses, and other permanent means of marking traffic lines in lieu of white paint, where materials are available and the additional cost can be justified.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Nottingham recently adopted metal studs as against white lines?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not know the particular instance, but I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE PERSONNEL (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given authority for the provision of proper accommodation with adequate ventilation for report and control centres and for the provision of beds or bunks for personnel engaged on night work and who are allowed to rest except during warnings of danger; and what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities act in accordance with his directions in this matter?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Authority exists for all these types of provision, and it is the desire of my right hon. Friend that local authorities should make full provision in these matters. Regional officers of the Department and the Inspector-General and his staff have the position under constant attention. If my hon. Friend has any

particular case in mind and will let me have details of it, I shall be happy to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING LOSSES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the losses due to enemy action in the mercantile marine for the month of May?

Sir V. Warrender: This Return was made public on Friday last.

Mr. Stokes: What proportion of the figures represents merchant losses due to enemy action in Grecian waters?

Sir V. Warrender: I have nothing to add to the explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider whether the figures should include merchant shipping losses in connection with the Navy?

Sir V. Warrender: I cannot answer these very complicated questions without notice. All possible information was included.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INDUSTRIES (ABSENTEEISM).

Major Maxwell Fyfe: asked the Minister of Labour the causes to which he attributes absenteeism in war industries beyond its normal industrial incidence?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The majority of the statements on this subject have been generalisations without concrete and detailed evidence. In order to judge more precisely both the facts and the causes, my right hon. Friend is obtaining particulars of cases so far reported in undertakings scheduled under the Essential Work Orders, one of the Clauses of which enables cases of alleged absenteeism to be reported to the National Service officers and dealt with.

Major Fyfe: In order to meet these generalisations, will a statement be made at the earliest possible opportunity giving full information to the House?

Mr. Assheton: I cannot answer that Question.

Mr. Graham White: Is not the hon. Gentleman seized of the fact that more rubbish has been spoken on this subject than on any other, excepting that of Rudolf Hess?

Captain Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what a warm welcome the speech of the Minister of Labour on the wireless last night received?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RESTAURANTS.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for fully trained and experienced people to visit the British Restaurants periodically without notice, in order to ensure that the highest possible standard of cooking is maintained?

Major Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Fully trained and experienced people have been on the staff of the Ministry of Food since the beginning of this year for the purpose indicated by my hon. Friend and are being so used. These officers are also available to give advice to local authorities who are about to open British Restaurants and their services may be asked for at any time. The Ministry have also prepared, and have issued to local authorities, special menus and recipes for use in British Restaurants, and this service is being continued so that full advantage may be taken of the food supply position at all times.

Miss Cazalet: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the wide variations in the standard of cooking in these restaurants, and will he send properly equipped people to see that the highest possible standard is attained?

Major Dugdale: I understand that six officers have been appointed since January and that it is their work to get round with a view to putting these matters right.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that it is one of the most difficult things in the world to keep your own cooking up to standard?

Miss Cazalet: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for a mobile British Restaurant Service to visit rural areas in order that the maximum number of villagers and agricultural workers may have the benefit of this new service?

Major Dugdale: A service such as is suggested by my hon. Friend has recently been under consideration, and my hon.

and gallant friend is hoping that an experiment on these lines will be made shortly.

Miss Cazalet: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in certain rural areas it is harder to get food than in urban areas and does he not think it is right and just that people in the villages should get the benefit of these British Restaurant services?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that the large number of evacuees who have come into the rural areas has overtaxed their capacity for the distribution of supplies?

Major Dugdale: I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend to take note of the points raised by my two hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA (OPERATIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the High Command in the Middle East has full authority to take whatever measures appear necessary, however drastic, to occupy Syria at the earliest possible moment and that no restraint on political grounds is being imposed.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Not only has the High Command full authority, but I have specially enjoined them to be guided by military considerations alone.

Mr. Garro Jones: In the event of unified operations by the Navy, Army and Air Force, has the General Officer Commanding in Chief any jurisdiction to issue orders to the three arms of the Forces?

The Prime Minister: All the relations of the three arms when on service together have for long been the subject of careful study and practice.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the Commander in Chief any unified power of command over the Air Force, for example, leaving the Navy out?

The Prime Minister: No, that is not the system that is being followed in any of these combined operations. The Navy is not placed in command of the Army, nor the Army in command of the Navy, nor the Air Force in command


of either. An arrangement has been reached which, on the whole, gets over what has always been a recognised difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRFIELDS (DEFENCE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the policy of the Royal Air Force to recruit a large body of men to guard airfields and the division of airfield protective duties between the Army and the Air Force indicated therein will result in the most efficient tactical handling of this part of home defence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But it would not be expedient to go into detail on these matters except in Secret Session. I may say that I will gladly give my hon. Friend any further information, but I see no reason why we should expose our arrangements to the enemy. I am thoroughly satisfied that a clear-cut decision has been reached and good working arrangements made.

Mr. Bellenger: While not having any desire to pursue this matter publicly now, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable apprehension is being excited in the minds of people in various quarters, and when will there be an opportunity of answering these apprehensions in Secret Session?

The Prime Minister: I had thought of going to the length of espying Strangers before answering this Question but I was not certain at all, as we are all strangers here in a certain sense, whether the consequences might derange the Business of the House. But we are ready to go into this subject in Secret Session.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Could the Prime Minister tell the House to whom Questions on this subject should be addressed?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for War. Prime responsibility rests with him.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. Gentleman authorise the Commander-in-Chief to give facilities to Members of Parliament, on request, to visit aerodromes? [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Why not?

The Prime Minister: I have always been very careful to secure facilities for Members of Parliament in the discharge of

their duties, and to make it perfectly clear that they have a special position in the country, but I should like to have notice of any particular request.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement with a view to the removal of doubts as to the precise status of Parliamentary Private Secretaries; to what extent they are to be regarded as part of the Government with right to speak on its behalf without independence as to speaking or voting; or whether it is the intention that they should enjoy the freedom of Private Members in these respects?

The Prime Minister: Parliamentary Private Secretaries occupy a special position, which is not always understood by the general public, either at home or abroad. Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government, and should not be spoken of as such. They are Private Members, and should therefore be afforded as much liberty of action as possible; but their close and confidential association with Ministers necessarily imposes certain obligations on them, and has led to the following generally accepted practice: That Parliamentary Private Secretaries should not make statements in the House or put Questions on matters affecting the Department with which they are connected. They should also exercise great discretion in any speeches or broadcasts which they make outside the House, bearing in mind that, however careful they may be to make it clear that they are speaking only as Private Members, they are nevertheless liable to be regarded as speaking with some of the knowledge and authority which attaches to a member of the Government.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is very disconcerting to find these gentlemen flitting from one side of the House to the other, and to note that whereas on the one side they are replete with praise, on the other side they are voluble in their criticisms?

The Prime Minister: We have all done a bit of flitting in our time, and no doubt we have suited our conduct to our circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

STOCK EXCHANGES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government policy in relation to investment by private persons and the control of capital issues, he will put stock exchanges under a charter or consult with the committee of the London Stock Exchange with a view to suggesting provisions for a charter to meet the present and post-war operations of stockbrokers and flotation firms indirectly working through stock exchanges?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not think that the Government policy to which my hon. Friend refers requires any action of the kind he suggests, but if the Committee of the London Stock Exchange have doubts whether their present position fully covers their needs, it is open to the committee to approach me on the subject.

INFLATION (WAGES SITUATION).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that further attempts to secure future stability in the cost of living by subsidies from taxation and loans creates, eventually, the injurious effects of inflation; and if he will now, therefore, begin to operate the alternative plans based on a policy of national stabilisation of wages so as to avoid hurried remedial action at the last moment?

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to stabilise wages in the endeavour to give effect to the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to secure the greatest possible stability in the cost of living; and what has been done in that direction?

Sir K. Wood: I believe that the country generally is alive to the dangers of inflation and the destruction of wage standards which would be its inevitable consequence. The policy of the Government, as was explained at length in my Budget Speech, is to guard against such dangers by a variety of measures, and in particular, to create conditions to enable the wages situation to be held about where it then was. The Government propose to maintain that policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDERS (DIVIDENDS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the custodian of enemy property stated, on the 17th October last, that it was not possible to invest any dividends received by him on behalf of British subjects in the Channel Islands and that these dividends were being held by companies or banks on blocked accounts to his order; and whether he will issue an order to the custodian and the companies and banks that these dividends are to be invested, as they come in, in national savings or bonds?

Captain Crookshank: Wherever a bank or agent desires to make such investments on behalf of a British subject in the Channel Islands, no objection will be raised. But I do not think that such investments should be made compulsory without regard to the known or assumed wishes of the persons concerned.

Sir A. Knox: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the custodian of enemy property has in one case definitely ordered the banks to hold this property at his disposal and not to make investments?

Sir W. Davison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is quite an exceptional case, in that the persons in question are unable to give instructions with regard to their property, and surely the Government should in those circumstances do the best thing possible for them?

Captain Crookshank: I think that point is covered by the first part of my answer. A bank or an agent generally has some idea of the wishes of the client, but it is quite another matter for the Government to say compulsorily that the money must be invested.

Sir W. Davison: Could the Government not say, "Unless there are instructions to the contrary?"

Sir John Mellor: Is the money left on deposit and the owner being credited with the interest?

Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. and gallant Member know that in the case of banks the interest is not being credited and that these persons are losing all interest?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether appropriate arrangements are being made for the provision of air-raid precautions services, or for transference of part of the population, in all colonial areas likely to suffer the effects of aerial bombardment during the present or future stages of the war; and whether all possible steps have been taken to meet any situation caused through the destruction or delay of foodstuffs, and other necessary commodities, normally imported info such areas?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Yes, Sir. The provision of A.R.P. services, including, where this is appropriate, dispersal of population, has been undertaken by the Governments of territories that are likely to be attacked. Steps have been taken to ensure that each territory is provided with sufficient stocks of food and other essential supplies, though the period for which perishable goods can be held is often influenced by climatic conditions. Precaution are being taken to guard against difficulties that may arise from delay in imports or from destruction of goods by enemy action.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA INDUSTRY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any long-term policy has been adopted for the speedy and effective resumption of cocoa production in, and export from, West Africa at the end of the war and for the planning of a progressive economy in West Africa that will enable West African natives to secure a permanently higher standard of living; and whether steps will betaken to secure the cooperation of representative West African natives to this end?

Mr. George Hall: There has been no interruption in the production of cocoa in West Africa, and consequently the question of resumption after the war does not arise. As my hon. Friend is aware, special arrangements have had to be made for marketing the crop owing to the interruption of trade with Continental Europe. My Noble Friend is anxious to do everything possible to raise the

standard of living for natives of West Africa; but it is impossible to frame a long-term economic policy until it is clear under what conditions international trade is to be conducted in the post-war world. The question of securing the co-operation of the local communities in whatever way may be thought most effective in each case is not being overlooked.

Mr. Sorensen: Has cocoa been burnt in recent months?

Mr. Hall: No cocoa has been burned during any month during the present year.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Has the price to the growers been reduced recently, the British Government being the sole purchaser while the price of cocoa in this country has been increased? Would the hon. Gentleman see that some of the increase goes to the growers?

Mr. Hall: The price was reduced, but we hope that negotiations will take place for an increase in the price paid to producers.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the progress of the war.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that this would be a good occasion for me to make another statement on the war situation in the Middle East. I should prefer to leave a longer interval before recurring to the topics we discussed so fully a fortnight ago. There are quite serious disadvantages in reviewing too frequently the course of operations which are still in progress.
I was, however, asked to give information about the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to an Imperial War Conference. As I told the House, we very much desire such a Conference and we had hoped that the end of July or the beginning of August might be a suitable occasion. I have now received replies to the inquiries I have made. Both General Smuts and Mr. MacKenzie King regret that the exigencies of their work in their respective countries make it impossible for them to come here in the near future. Mr. Menzies has only just


returned to Australia, though I hope we shall see him here again before long. Mr. Fraser, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, arrived last Saturday and is sitting with us constantly in our councils. He would not, however, be able to remain indefinitely. The House will readily understand that these Prime Ministers of important and powerful Governments, with the legislatures and the whole war effort of their peoples to guide, find great difficulties in meeting here simultaneously. I hope these difficulties may be resolved at some time in the future, but for the present I feel that it is impossible to fix a date.

Mr. Granville: As the Empire War Conference is to be postponed to some other occasion, will my right hon. Friend keep his mind ajar on the question of the Empire War Cabinet?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask whether the Prime Minister has any statement to make about the forthcoming Business?

The Prime Minister: In regard to Business, some changes have been forced upon us by the course of events. We propose to move the Adjournment of the House now, in a few moments, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will make a statement on the German invasion of Russia. Later we shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment, and then take the Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000 for war expenditure, and the formal Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. The Debate on Shipping, which was to take place in Secret Session to-day, will be taken upon the next Sitting Day. The Debate on the Ministry of Information will have to stand over.

Mr. Buchanan: Has any arrangement been made about the subject to be discussed on the Vote of Credit?

The Prime Minister: It will be governed by the usual procedure on such occasions.

Sir I. Albery: When will the Debate on shipping take place?

The Prime Minister: It will be one day's Debate, and it will take place on the next

Sitting Day. The Debate on the Ministry of Information will take place later.

Mr. Lees-Smith: What will the Business be on the third Sitting Day?

The Prime Minster: There will be no change in the Business for that day, which is the Committee stage of the Prices of Goods Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there are usually arrangements for some subject to be discussed on a Vote of Credit, and that that is more convenient than roaming over very many subjects?

The Prime Minister: There are no particular arrangements.

BILLS PRESENTED.

REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE BILL,

"to amend the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and the Essential Buildings and Plant (Repair of War Damage) Act, 1939," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, supported by Mr. T. Johnston and Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 38].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to extend the third fixed grant period under the Local Government Act, 1929, and to make provision for the stabilisation of Supplementary Exchequer Grants, and the continuance of schemes as to health services, during the term of such extension; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, supported by Captain Crookshank and Miss Horsbrugh; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 39].

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

GERMAN INVASION OF RUSSIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Prime Minister, on Sunday night, told the world after his own unrivalled fashion of the decisions at which His Majesty's Government had arrived as a consequence of the German invasion of Soviet Russia. To-day, I would wish to give the House a brief account of the diplomatic events which preceded that giant act of aggression and of the developments which have followed upon it. The House and the country will, I think, desire to take a severely practical view of these matters. We keep our eye on the target; that target is Hitler's Germany. Let us pay him the compliment of understanding that he too keeps his eye on the target, and that target is the British Empire, which he still rightly regards as the chief obstacle in his path to world dominion. The invasion of Soviet Russia is not an end, but a means. Through his attack upon Russia Hitler hopes to break the military power of that vast State and thus to free himself from any contemporary or subsequent Eastern anxiety when he turns to his duel with our own land. We are back to the German policy on Russia set out in "Mein Kampf," and despite the sudden revulsions of Hitler's diplomacy, he has in truth never strayed far from it. Let mankind never for a moment forget that the dominating theme of that turgid revelation of boundless ambition is world dominion. All treaties, all pacts, all agreements are for Hitler but the chloroform to new aggression.
In the difficult and dangerous political and diplomatic situation which exists to-day, it would clearly serve no useful purpose to enter into a prolonged analysis of the vicissitudes of Anglo-Soviet relations. But I would recall this fact, which seems to me a cardinal truth in assessing them. In 1935 we agreed in Moscow with the Soviet Government a statement which declared among other things that there was no conflict of interest between the two Governments on any of the main issues of international policy. I have always believed that those words expressed a plain statement of fact, and that the relations of our two countries would benefit

from their mutual acceptance. And though since 1935 the relations of our two countries have undergone many a modification, they remain as true to-day as when they were agreed upon between us. The political systems of our two countries are antipathetic, our ways of life are widely divergent, but this cannot and must not for a moment obscure the realities of the political issue which confronts us to-day. Germany has perpetrated upon Russia an act of studied and deliberate aggression. Two years ago Germany and Russia signed a pact of non-aggression. At no time since the signature of that pact has Germany complained of its performance. At the hour when Germany, without warning, struck her blow, no representations had been made and no discussions of any kind were in progress.
Here I would ask the House to let me deal for a moment with the latest of the false statements of the German Foreign Secretary, Herr von Ribbentrop. I must quote what he said:
While German troops were concentrating on Bulgarian and Rumanian territory against the increasing landings of British troops in Greece, the Soviet Union tried, now already in a clear agreement with England, to stab Germany in the back by firstly supporting Yugoslavia openly, politically and in secret militarily, by trying secondly to influence Turkey, by giving her a covering guarantee, to adopt an aggressive attitude against Bulgaria and Germany.
Those are Hitler's charges, and in face of that I must make it plain that much as we in His Majesty's Government and this House would have welcomed an agreement with the Soviet Union in order to maintain the solidarity of the Balkan peoples before they were overrun by Germany, an opportunity for such an agreement unfortunately never presented itself. There was never any sort or kind of agreement with the Soviet Union in this matter, and I will tell the House the reason. At every phase in recent history the development of Anglo-Soviet relations was always retarded by the attention paid by the Soviet Union to the observance of their pact with Germany. Time and again we reviewed the possibility of clearing the path of Anglo-Soviet co-operation of any obstacles which we could, but on every occasion, every time investigation was made, whether the matters were trade or whether they were political, it became clear to us that the Soviet Government were not prepared to negotiate in view of their anxiety not to


introduce any embarrassment into their relations with Germany.
What was our attitude? Our attitude was equally clear. We on our side never had any intention to conclude any arrangement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics except on a basis of mutual interest and satisfaction, in fact, on a basis of reciprocity. In the light of the Soviet Union's pact with Germany no such basis existed. I explain that to the House in order that they may see how completely devoid of any foundation, in fact, is Ribbentrop's statement, published to the world.
There is another aspect of the matter on which I would give the House some information. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has told the world how, some time ago, he warned the head of the Russian State of the peril which he, rightly, saw was impending. That is not quite all. Some time before the events of the last few days we at the Foreign Office were already convinced from the information at our disposal that Hitler, true to his usual technique, was going to attack Russia from behind the smokescreen of his non-aggression pact. With my right hon. Friend's consent, I accordingly asked the Soviet Ambassador to come and see me, and I told him of the information at our disposal and of the danger which, I was convinced, confronted his country. I gave him, at his request, details of that information as we thought we were bound to do. Even at that late hour the Soviet Government were careful to avoid any expression of opinion which might seem to throw doubt on their own observance of their engagement with Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] It was some weeks ago. I think it is fair that these things should be said now.
It was this assessment of impending events that caused me to ask His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to return to this country for consultation. I felt that his experience and his advice would be invaluable to us at such a time, and so it has proved. The House and the country are deeply indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—if I may give him for a moment his Parliamentary rather than his diplomatic description—for work done under conditions of the utmost difficulty. For

the reasons I have given, he was unable to conclude any of those pacts or agreements which were once so dear to the diplomatist's heart, although, to-day, they enjoy but a brief butterfly life. Yet it is clear that, by his influence and by his example, my hon. and learned Friend has shown to the Soviet Union the fundamental desire of His Majesty's Government to maintain our relations upon a normal footing. When he returns to his post; he will be able, with his marked ability, to advise and direct the help which it is the declared intention of His Majesty's Government to give to the Soviet Union at the present time.
As the outcome of the events of the last few days, conversations have, of course, been proceeding between the Russian Government and ourselves. The House will appreciate that I am not able to reveal the full results of those discussions, but I can tell the House that I have now heard from His Excellency the Soviet Ambassador that his Government have accepted our offer to send military and economic missions to Russia to co-ordinate our efforts in what is now, beyond doubt, a common task—the defeat of Germany. The Soviet Government have made it plain to us that in the period of military collaboration which now lies ahead, help will be upon a mutual and a reciprocal basis. His Majesty's Government accept and endorse that view.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question? I am sure the House would wish to know at this stage whether application has also been made to send an air mission to Russia at the same time.

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will, perhaps, appreciate that I use the word "military," the significance of which I think must be clear to everybody. This latest demonstration of German perfidy, the attack on the Soviet Union, in defiance of solemn and repeated pledges, has given mankind the final proof, if further proof were needed, of the worldwide scope of the Nazi lust for power. Hitler has shown himself, once again, a cynical traitor to his own pledged word. A pact one day, an aggression the next. Soothing words in the winter, bombs and tanks in the spring. Those are the methods by which he seeks to subdue all nations, great and small, in the pursuit


of world dominion. No Nazi posturing can now deceive the world. All must realise that whatever their system of government, wherever their geographical position, the great and immediate danger to their security is the existence in the world of the Nazi system. Whatever other consideration may be in balance, that is the greatest.
This country has probably fewer Communists than any nation in Europe. We have always hated the creed, but that is not the issue. Russia has been invaded, wantonly, treacherously, without warning. Not even the Germans have seriously pretended provocation. The Russians to-day are righting for their soil. They are fighting the man who seeks to dominate the world. This is also our sole task. Confronted with his latest aggression, it is our determination not to relax but to intensify our efforts. Napoleon, if I remember aright, once said, "I have always marched with four millions or five millions of men." We are marching to-day, after Hitler's last act of aggression, with the opinions of hundreds of millions of men.
There is one reference I would ask the House to let me make. At a time like this our thoughts go out with heartfelt sympathy to our Polish Ally. Once again, their soil is a battlefield. Once again their people suffer for no fault of their own. The Polish people have had a hard history. By their courage in a time of unparalleled ordeal, they have earned and they will redeem their freedom. That remains our pledge.
Turkey has declared her neutrality in this conflict. From the date of the signature of our Treaty of Mutual Assistance in October, 1939, our relations with Turkey have been on a very special basis. Turkey is our friend and Ally. The Turkish Government have kept us fully informed of the progress of their recent negotiations with the German Government. The conclusion of that agreement, therefore, came as no surprise to His Majesty's Government. But I make no mystery of the matter; we should naturally have preferred that no such treaty had been concluded. None the less the preamble of the treaty expressly safeguards the existing contractual engagements of each party. The Turkish Government have repeatedly made it plain to us that, first and foremost among these

engagements stands the Anglo-Turkish Treaty, and they have specifically assured our Ambassador since the conclusion of the Agreement with Germany, and once again within the last 24 hours, that our Treaty stands intact.
I must say a word on the events on the Northern flank of the new war. The Finnish Minister asked to see me yesterday, and he gave me a message from his Government. He assured me that Finland's attitude was, and would continue to be, a purely defensive one in the present conflict. There was, he told me, no change in the diplomatic relations between the Soviet Government and Finland. It was the hope of his Government that his country would not become involved in the conflict. I told Mr. Gripenburg that I had taken note of his assurance, and that I was quite confident that the course which his Government had announced their desire to follow was the right and only course for Finland.
I cannot conclude this brief survey of the events of the last few days and hours without referring to, and offering on behalf of all Members of this House, a word of hearty welcome to His Excellency the United States Ambassador who has returned to our shores. He has come back to us, as I can testify from conversations with him, refreshed by his brief sojourn in his own country, re-inspired by his contacts with his President and his countrymen, and stimulated by what he has seen of the immense effort being made in the United States. The past few days, indeed the past few hours, have brought fresh indications, fresh assurances, of the continued and increasing support of our American friends, support both material and moral, the volume of which will overwhelm Nazi resistance and crush Nazi power. The House will, I hope, have read the declaration by Mr. Sumner Welles which appears in the Press this morning. On behalf of the Government we heartily endorse his statement that any defence against Hitlerism, from whatever source, will hasten the eventual downfall of the present German leaders. Mr. Winant has brought us, too, the renewed expression of the determination of his great country to aid us in the tasks to which we as a nation are dedicated. The one aim, the one irrevocable purpose to which the Prime Minister only two nights ago pledged us once again, is the destruction


of Hitler and the Nazi regime. In the task we shall not falter until the final victory is won.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I have been asked by hon. Friends to add a few sentences in order to express our accord with the decision of the Government to give all the aid they can to the Soviet Union. That decision, announced by the Prime Minister in a broadcast statement, was, I think, a decisive act of leadership at a critical moment. If Hitler has imagined that by this act he would be regarded by any party or any quarter in this country or, I might add, in the United States as a crusader against Communism, I think he under-estimates our intelligence, because we know that his most implacable hatred is reserved for the democratic systems of this country and the United States, which express the view of the common man, and which are the more irreconcilable than Communism with the foul Nazi creed. This attack upon Russia is part of the joint plan for an attack upon Russia and this country together. A year ago this country stood first on the list, but as the result of the defeat of Germany in the Battle of Britain, the order has now been altered, and the act last Sunday morning merely means that, owing to the increased forces which we now have in this country since last year, Hitler has realised that he must defeat Russia and release the great air force and the many divisions from Russia before the final assault on this country.
I will say to the Foreign Secretary that I had, before he spoke, one anxiety in my mind which has been very considerably eased. I was apprehensive lest this country might allow political prepossessions to interfere with full strategic cooperation, and I was relieved by the Foreign Secretary's statement that differences of political system must not be allowed to obscure the realities of the situation. These realities are that Hitler is now fighting a war on two fronts, and both these fronts should, on our side, be regarded as part of the joint campaign. That is why perhaps the most important statement the Foreign Secretary made was that a military and economic mission is about to proceed to Russia. In this joint campaign—and, after all, it is a joint campaign on this side of Europe—our attacks upon Germany by air and by other possible means which need not be

developed here, are attacks of considerable weight on the strength, particularly of the air force, which Germany can use for her Eastern operations. On the other side I think if is already plain that Germany, whatever the military situation may be, can never conquer Russia if Russia has the same spirit of resistance to-day as she had against Napoleon a little over 100 years ago.
After this winter Hitler will be faced with this situation: Material resources will have passed largely into our hands, and he will have to hold down in Europe a great number of nations determined to strike for their freedom and vengeance as soon as the opportunity comes. I do not believe that he could at the same time hold down 180,000,000 Russians if their spirit of resistance is what it used to be. In order that this may be ensured, there must be a joint spirit of resistance in this country, in Europe, and in Russia. It is of supreme importance to remember the part that propaganda will play. Goebbels began sending his propaganda over to the Russian troops on Sunday morning. Let us not allow any doctrinal prejudices to weaken the opportunity which Hitler has now placed in our hands.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): I rise to say in a few words that my colleagues and I endorse the policy of the Government. On Sunday they had to take a rapid and definite decision. That decision was expressed in a masterpiece of broadcasting, in which the Prime Minister surpassed himself. It had, I am sure, a response throughout the country and rallied public opinion by appealing to the whole nation, without reference to party or political opinions. If there had been still a small section that doubted the wisdom of this war, we shall now have a united nation. For perfidy and cynicism, Herr Hitler, in his statement, surpassed himself. A compact entered into and put into writing, to secure peace between two great nations, was torn up without notice, and the country of one of the parties to that treaty was invaded and its people killed.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary insisted upon the strategic importance of the position. There are some people who think that because Germany is now faced with a war on two fronts, our dangers are lessened. Nothing is further from the


truth. We can be sure that the German general staff, who are masters of strategy, have chosen the right moment for their invasion. The fact that the strategic position has changed makes it vital that this country should intensify its efforts in the production of munitions and in the organisation of the war. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary insist that we should clear our minds of prejudice against the internal form of government in Russia. It has always been our principle that the kind of government that a country chooses is the affair of that country. In the last war we had as Allies Republican France and Czarist Russia, and we worked harmoniously together until the fall of the Czarist Government. Our object should be to root out this evil thing, to destroy these outlaws who disregard solemn pacts and agreements, and to work with any nation, whatever its political alignments, until peace is restored to a troubled Europe.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Like my two right hon. Friends who have preceded me, I would like to endorse the policy of the Government and to welcome the great promptitude and vigour of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to-day, it was marked with dignity and restraint as one would expect on such an occasion from the British Foreign Secretary. We can, I think, regard this latest development of German treachery with qualified satisfaction. It brings us the immediate advantage of an even more united nation. It brings to the Government the support of the only Member of Parliament who has withheld that support, and it enlists some sections of the community who were under the influence of a certain kind of propaganda. That is a very great advantage. There are other advantages of a short-term nature. The efforts of Germany against us are momentarily distracted. Again, whatever the outcome of the conflict, there must be a great consumption of German war material.
The immediate question is, How can we bring help to Russia? We can bring this help by increasing our activity in every sphere. That is indirect help. I am very glad that the Government are pursuing

that course, particularly in the air. Directly, the most satisfactory way of helping Russia, at any rate throughout the year, would be through the Black Sea. Unfortunately, however, in addition to her conquest of the Greek mainland and Crete, Germany has taken the Ægean Islands, and thus commands the approaches to the Dardanelles and Smyrna. That is a great disadvantage—one might almost say a rebuff—to British sea power, which for many generations has controlled the entrances to the Dardanelles and to Smyrna. But there are other means of strengthening Turkey. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russia."] I think that Turkey is in a key position and that without the assistance of Turkey we cannot continuously and effectively assist Russia. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that, despite the signature by Turkey of a treaty with Germany, Turkey was still on a special basis of friendship with ourselves. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has good reason for saying that. It is particularly encouraging, because the Turkish Foreign Secretary said when he signed the treaty that it had placed the foundation of the friendship of Turkey and Germany on the most solid basis and confirmed for the future that the two countries would not oppose each other in any way. There are also the Press and the trade agreements. It is better to look these facts in the face, and not to let ourselves be deceived later on. Unless we can effectively strengthen Turkey, there is no doubt that that country will be used as an avenue to the achievement of German ambitions in Asia, for attacking our Arab interests and our Egyptian position. I hope that what the Foreign Secretary says will prove to be true; he must have reason for saying it. There are means of sustaining Turkey. One means would be by expediting the conclusion of the Syrian campaign, which I am glad to see is making much more progress. The other would be by reviewing our method of political warfare, to which my right hon. Friend who followed the Foreign Secretary made some allusion
But I do not think that we should give Turkey up for lost. I believe that by vigorous action we can sustain her, and she, after all, does, as I say, occupy a key position in this struggle. It is urgent to take measures in the military sphere which will reassure her, but if it is urgent


to take measures in the military sphere, it is also urgent to take them in the industrial sphere. I can welcome the assurance which my right hon. Friend himself properly gave just now, that we would accelerate and accentuate the industrial war measures. This is not the occasion to dwell upon our defects, but they are numerous and conspicuous, and they are widespread and must be rectified, if we are to profit by the lapse of time which must occur before the Germans can achieve a success in Russia, even if they can achieve it in the end.
Let us not mistake what will happen if they do succeed. They will have at their disposal enormous resources of oil, of grain and of metals, and then the whole mass of German might will be directed against us. But before they can achieve this objective some time must elapse by which we can profit. Again, from a longer-term point of view, let us realise the subtlety of this Hitlerian move. Whether it was done from wild desperation or methodical calculation, it does carry the support of other countries by its specious character. It does carry Marshal Pétain, the sole basis of whose doctrine is anti-Communism; it does help to carry Franco, and it has even wider effect? It enables Rumania to recover, in her own estimation, her self-respect and to fight the Russians and thus retrieve what she thinks she has morally lost by her subservience to Germany. It has perhaps to some extent the same effect in Finland, but all these are long-term effects. Immediately, we have, as a result of this act of treachery, a great opportunity, and I only pray that His Majesty's Government will seize it to the full

Earl Winterton: Despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has been good enough on several occasions to pay me the unmerited tribute of suggesting that I was a serious opponent of his, I would like to pay a tribute to the speech which he made on Sunday evening. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not think that I am unkind—he knows that on personal grounds I would not wish to say anything wounding to him—if I say that I rather regret that in the speech he has delivered he has not followed the extremely careful and well-guarded centre of the road which the right hon.

Gentleman followed on Sunday evening. There were one or two observations in the speech of my right hon. Friend which I rather regret, because I am sure that he would be the first to recognise that this question is not as simple in the United States of America as it may appear to us in this country. Might I mention a slight distinction between the tone of the Prime Minister and that of the Foreign Secretary?. The Prime Minister, to my great delight—and surely this applies almost to every Member of the House—referred to the Germans, as they should be referred to, as Huns, but throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there was a reference to "Hitler's Germany." I do not recognise any difference between Hitler and the Germans at the present time.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): We do.

Earl Winterton: Some of my hon. Friends may, but if they knew, they would not do so, not one of them. If they had had the experience of what hundreds of thousands of Germans have done to the Polish people, they would at this moment make no distinction between Hitler and the Germans. I have on this side of the House many hon. Friends who will agree with me in saying that at this moment there is no distinction to be drawn between them. However, I do not want to make a controversial distinction but to ask my right hon. Friend a question. I have some slight knowledge of the Middle East and a good many friends and acquaintances and some former brother officers, like General Nuri Pasha the Iraqian Ambassador in Cairo, among my personal friends. I think that it is due to the Arabs that the situation between us and Turkey should be far more clarified than it has been by the speech of my right hon. Friend. In fact, to use a vulgar phrase—and I hope my right hon. Friend will pardon my using it—taken in conjunction with the quotation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) from the speech of the Turkish Prime Minister, if that quotation is taken in conjunction with what my right hon. Friend has said to-day, it just does not make sense. In the most public manner possible the Turkish Prime Minister announced that a new and binding treaty had been signed with Germany. I would be prepared


to put this point not only to this House but to any assembly of my fellow countrymen outside and ask, and can anyone deny it—How can you have the closest treaty with Germany and this country at the moment? It is that sort of thing that annoys people outside—that sort of glossing over a very difficult situation and saying that it will not make the slightest difference. I am sure that they signed away everything that they signed with us. It is said, "It will make not the slightest difference; His Majesty's Government have the same confidence in them." That cannot be possible.
I have great admiration for Turkey, but I do not think that it is within the confines of the dignity of the British Government or the Foreign Secretary that this situation should not be cleared up. Remember what it follows. The right hon. Gentlemen the Foreign Minister of this great Empire went on two or three journeys almost as a sort of commis voyageur, accompanied by his naval and military staffs, to interview the Turkish Prime Minister. Everyone expected that the very first thing to follow from that would be a statement that we were going to get some material military aid from Turkey, but nothing of the kind happened. It is neither fair to the Russians nor to ourselves. The position in which Turkey stands should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment. I am willing to admit that their difficulties are enormous; I make every allowance for these difficulties. The time has gone by in this vast earth-shaking contest, which is now apparently about to spread over the whole of the globe, when any country of the importance and dignity of Turkey can be in the position in which she is to-day. Sooner or later she has to declare which side she is on. [Interruption.] My right hon. friend the Prime Minister may say, "What a remark to make." Surely, it is applicable to the situation. Is she to remain neutral while fighting goes on all the way round?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It is a most unfortunate remark.

Earl Winterton: I do not think that it is an unfortunate remark at all. It is due to all our friends in the Middle East and to the Arabs and to the Syrians that we should know where she stands.

Sir William Davison: Would not the Germans also like to know exactly where Turkey stands?

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is always in favour of the Government, but I hope that for his complete loyalty he will not be made a permanent member of the Chamber.

Sir W. Davison: The noble Lord must try and keep his temper.

Earl Winterton: It is highly essential that we should know where the Turks stand in this matter.

Mr. Lipson: If we had put that question since the beginning of the war to Russia, would our relations be what they are to-day?

Earl Winterton: The situation is surely entirely different from that which exists between us and Russia. I wish to put this point direct to the Government. The Russian Government at the outbreak of war signed a pact which they were fully entitled to do—I make no complaints of the Russian Government—with the German Government. The answer to the hon. Member is that the right hon. Gentleman himself said in the course of his speech again and again that while that pact remained they could not enter into conversations with us. We on the other hand had a treaty with the Turks, on the score of which we had entered into conversations with Turkey and on top of that, to the amazement of the whole world, the Turks have signed a treaty with the Germans. Even if everyone is against me I will still persist in the point that for a country in the position we are in—and we have nothing to be ashamed of; vast forces are coming into potential action on our side—we should be told more about the position of our former friend.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Noble Lord say what justification there is for describing Turkey as a former friend?

Earl Winterton: After the speech which the Turkish Prime Minister made 10 days ago it is impossible for Turkey to be in the same position vis a vis this country as she was before.

Mr. Lipson: In spite of the fact that Russia made a pact with Germany, through no action taken by us Russia and


ourselves are now fighting in a common cause. Is not that moral clear so far as Turkey is concerned?

Earl Winterton: I do not wish to detain the House—and I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's point—but I am entitled to put this point of view and I shall be most agreeably surprised if in the next few weeks a great many Members of the House, including the Government, do not agree that what happened in connection with the signature of this treaty was a most serious blow to us.

The Prime Minister: I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the Debate on the lines to which it has been turned by the Noble Lord, because I am sure that it would not be at all in the public interest to continue on those lines. I rise rather to hope that the other aspects of the difficult foreign situation may engage the attention of the House and that we should not seek to probe and define too clearly the attitude of certain Powers who, surrounded by very great difficulties, may not wish, or may not be in a position, to declare themselves. All this pressing for a precise answer "Yes" or "No" may sometimes lead to getting an answer contrary to the one you expected, and I am bound to say that I hoped this fairly obvious point would have impressed itself even upon the Noble Lord. These excursions of his into foreign politics, which, I must say, he is less well fitted to discuss than some of the other numerous topics on which he assists us, will not, I trust, be too frequent. I find it very difficult to derive any principle of guidance if no reference is to be made to any country in which the Noble Lord has fought. It would be an altogether undue complication of the liberties of our speech. I trust that we shall drop the topic now, because it really is a case of "least said, soonest mended."

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the war that has been launched against the Soviet Union, it may be said that in a very short space of time there will be a considerable shifting of attitude. I am not the only one who will do the shifting, but before I go any further I would like to deal with one or two obvious lies and slanders which have been made against the Soviet Union by men who claimed to know everything that was going on behind the scenes. The Soviet

Union wanted peace and wanted it in earnest. I quoted on several occasions "The British Case," by Lord Lloyd, which made it clear that there was no intention of making a peace pact with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union found it impossible to get a peace pact, they signed the non-aggression pact with Germany in order to get time to prepare their defences. In the preparation of these defences they moved into Poland. Now many Members of this House claimed to know that an arrangement had been made between the Soviet Union and Germany to divide up Poland. The present Prime Minister said it was a good thing that Russia should stand on the lines she then occupied. How much better is it now? It would have been a tragedy if the road to Leningrad had been wide open to-day. It was a wise step to close it. When the Baltic States decided to go over to the Soviet Union, was that not an act of wisdom? The control and influence of the Nazis were broken. If they had not gone over, what would have been the position of the Baltic States to-day? They would have been completely under the control of the Nazis. Last week I was approached in the smoke room by a group of people, including a Member of the Opposition Front Bench, who said, "Will Stalin make these. terrible concessions to Germany?" I replied that I had no particular knowledge of what was going on in Moscow and that I was only using my intelligence to judge, as they also might judge. I said, "There is one thing anybody can be positive of, and that is that no territorial or political concessions will be made to Germany or any other country."
At that time I did not realise how near was war between the Soviet Union and Germany, but I was set thinking on Thursday by the demeanour of the Prime Minister, and not, I may say, by the remark which he made to me about turning to the right, because I generally turn to the left. It is the unholy gang behind the Prime Minister that will turn to the right. I met my comrades that night, and I said to them that I had never seen anyone so chirpy, cheery, and confident as the Prime Minister was that day. It made us realise that something big was likely to break. When I heard the news on Sunday, I was very busy in connection with other engagements, but when I


heard that the Prime Minister was to speak over the wireless, I felt that on that occasion at any rate I would like to hear his speech. But as I had to travel from a very important election meeting, I missed the speech. On reading it on Monday morning, I must admit that I was slightly and agreeably surprised to find that he had gone as far as he had. I had not expected it. But even so, the Prime Minister did not go far enough. I was interested in his very firm declaration that there would be no peace with Hitler. That was not a pledge to the Soviet Union; it was a declaration and a challenge to the "sell-outers" on the other side, the ruling class in this country, and members of the Prime Minister's own party, and even of his own Government, some of whom have been very active in different directions since the coming of Hess.
I have always been against the sell-outers, because I knew that selling-out meant not only the betrayal of the people of Europe, but the betrayal of the people of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Communists?"] I have already dealt with some of the lies and slanders, although some of the liars do not know when they lie. It has been made clear that much of the hatred of Hitler was due to the fact that he did not go to war against the Soviet Union. If the hon. Member who interrupted me has sufficient intelligence to study the documents that have been published, he will get a better idea of what happened in 1939. At any rate, the Prime Minister's statement was a declaration directed against the sell-outers in the ruling class and in the Government. There was a promise of technical and economic support, but the one thing that is essential is that we should have a Government that can make the most confident and active co-operation with the Soviet Union in the great task that lies ahead.
I declare, without any hesitation, that I am solidly for the Soviet Union. There is no doubt or hesitation about my attitude. I take this attitude not because I am a hireling or take orders from anyone; that is another slander that ought to be ended. I have never been a hireling and never will be. I do not represent Moscow or the Soviet Union; I represent in this House the workers of West Fife; but I could not be true to the workers of West

Fife if I were false to the workers in any other part of Britain, and I could not be true to the workers of Britain if I were not true to the workers of other countries and particularly to the great working-class country, the Soviet Union, its devoted working-class leaders and its heroic working class. My support for the Soviet Union arises from my loyalty to the working class of this country. It is because I am concerned with the welfare of the working classes of this country that I am prepared to take every step and to fight in every way to prevent any attempt to sell out, for that would be a betrayal not only of the Soviet Union, but of the people of this country. I want to see a Government in this country from which the Municheers and the sell-outers are completely and rigidly excluded, a Government that will in the truest sense speak for the people, that will work in the closest and most active co-operation with the Soviet Union to bring this terrible war to an end at the earliest moment and to secure the complete elimination of Fascism in whatever form it shows itself, that will bring back a lasting, democratic people's peace for the people of Europe and freedom for oppressed people everywhere

Mr. James Griffiths: May I put a Question to the hon. Member for West 'Fife (Mr. Gallacher)? The hon. Member speaks in this House for a party with which we are all familiar in our constituencies. I want to ask him plainly, in view of what has happened, do the members of his party in the country propose now to give the nation's war effort the fullest support?

Mr. Gallacher: I do not know what the hon. Member means when he refers to the nation's war effort. Suggestions have been made at different times that the Communists are concerned with holding up production. Time and again I have denied and repudiated this, and I have declared that the hold-up in production is the responsibility of the Government and the employers.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter of importance. In our constituencies, when we are doing our best to help the nation's war effort, we get hostility from the party for which the hon. Member speaks. Therefore, I feel that I am entitled to


put to the hon. Member, as representing that party, a plain question and to ask for a straight reply. What I mean is that the Communists should stop their campaign for what they call a people's peace, but what I calla surrender, a campaign which is hampering the nation's effort. Do the party for which the hon. Member speaks propose from now on to join the Labour movement in this country in throwing their whole energy into the efforts of the nation to win the war?

Mr Gallacher: I must ask for notice of that question.

Commander Bower: As the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is unable to answer a plain question as to the attitude of the Communist party, I would like for one moment to explain the attitude of another section of the community throughout the Empire—His Majesty's many millions of very loyal Roman Catholic subjects. We have no doubt where we stand. We hate Communism and Nazism equally, for one reason and one reason only, that both are pagan and both atheistic.

Mr. McGovern: Did not the hon. gentleman support General Franco?

Commander Bower: Certainly I did, and I do still. As regards the political and military measures which may be necessary, as long as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary stand by the assurances which they have given to-day that they do not wish in any way to withdraw their condemnation of Communism as a creed, we also will be behind them and will have our eyes on the target, which is the utter destruction of Hitler and of Nazi Germany.

Mr. Woodburn: I very much regret that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) sought to find some difference in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is most undesirable that anybody who wishes to help in the war effort should seek to find differences among us at this time, instead of trying to find the greatest measure of common agreement. It would seem to me to be perfectly obvious, although I have no expert knowledge of military or foreign affairs, that the position of Turkey was such that she had to consider her self-preservation just as did

Russia. Turkey could not have helped this country in any way if she had allowed herself to become the first victim. If the agreement that has just been signed between Germany and Turkey is equally binding on Turkey as it is on Germany, it will only last as long as is convenient, or until the next occasion.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that the Foreign Secretary stated quite specifically that while that agreement existed between Russia and Germany there was no basis for discussions between this country and Russia? If that is the case, surely it should be made perfectly clear, now that Turkey has an agreement with Germany, whether we still have any loophole whereby we may carry out negotiations to a fruitful end.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the Foreign Secretary made that perfectly clear. After all, I do not know that my hon. Friend always says all that he thinks when he is in a war—I am sure he does not do it when fighting his opponent at an election. I do not think the Foreign Secretary should be asked to do anything to impede our future relations with Turkey in this particular instance.
I wish to raise another matter, which so far has not been dealt with, and which I think was a very important omission from the Foreign Secretary's speech. It may be desirable that it should be omitted from his speech, but it is not so binding upon me. This war will not be won by military, naval or air power alone. It is to be won eventually by the tremendous assistance which will come from people on the Continent who themselves wish to be liberated. The people who are facing Hitler and who are opposed to Hitler comprise many and varied elements, and it is impossible for one appeal to reach them in the same way and at the same time. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) obviously represents a great body of opinion throughout the world which would not respond to an appeal by the Soviet Union, whereas there are people who would respond in Germany to an appeal from Russia. There are people in the East who will not respond to any appeal which comes from Russia. Therefore, if this propaganda is to be such an important part of our war effort, it seems desirable


that there should be consultations with Russia with a view to using wireless stations in that region to put over the policy of the British Government. In other words, there ought to be propaganda collaboration as far as the existing facilities are concerned.
There is an aspect of this change which will considerably affect us at home. The hon. Member spoke about turning left. But if a person turns left often enough he soon gets back to where he started, and that seems to me to be the position of his party. It started by supporting the war, then it turned left, and now it has turned left again and has reached the same position. The same applies also to people who turn right. So far as one can see, there is no disagreement in this country any more than there was in September, 1939. In September, 1939, there was not one political party in this country which was not opposed to fighting Hitler, and today we have reached the same position. The I.L.P. was not opposed to standing up to Hitler; there was not one party opposed to standing up to Hitler. If we have reached that position to-day, it should neutralise the opposition of a great number of people, which in its turn should help us considerably on the productive side. Whatever the hon. Member may say, there is no question at all that the Communist party in this country have for some months been carrying on a system of sabotage of our industrial effort. They have been advising people to hang up production, and they have been assisting people to fight for all sorts of trifles. They have been organising sabotage and carrying on a systematic campaign against the production of munitions of war for the men at the front.
I do not wish to engage in any recriminations. No one perhaps has done more to fight the stupidity of the Communist party in this country than I have done, and this is not a time for recrimination in this direction. But I hope that this campaign of sabotage is going to stop, and that those who are at present causing mischief in the factories will turn round and realise that while they may not have been concerned because the loss of an hour's work deprived one of our soldiers of a rifle, one hour's lost work to-day means a loss to the Soviet Union, if that is the county to which they are allied.
The defeat of Hitler depends upon the industrial capacity of this country being raised to its uttermost. All those foolish people who believed by preserving Russia they were going to preserve themselves must now realise, if they want to preserve Russia they must preserve this country as well. I hope that they will realise their first loyalty is to their own country. I hope the Government will take the steps I have indicated, particularly in regard to propaganda, and that some consultations will take place with a view to seeing whether the great broadcasting apparatus of the Soviet Union cannot be used for certain of our propaganda services.

Mr. A. Bevan: The House is discussing this matter to-day under very great difficulties. I do not understand why it is that, with so much Parliamentary Business, the House is given this extended opportunity to discuss a situation which, if I may use a homely illustration, has little meat on the bone. I should have thought it would be far more urgent for us to be discussing the shipping situation, or the production situation, or something of that kind, and I do hope that the Prime Minister will not be extravagant with Parliamentary time in the future. I say that because this is precisely a matter which the House of Commons cannot discuss. We, of course, welcome the opportunity it produces, if only for our selfish interests, in the fact that Hitler is now in conflict with so formidable an enemy. I was never able to understand why certain people believed that a conflict between Russia and Germany could be permanently avoided. It seemed to me absolutely essential for Hitler, if he was to drive us out of Europe, to attack the Soviet Union in order to defend himself in the rear. Unfortunately for us, he has selected his opportunity when there is no second land frontier. That is one of our very great dangers. Our real danger arises from this, that owing to the fact that Hitler has wisely, carefully and prudently avoided any possibility of a clash on a second land front, our chances of giving Russia military assistance are thereby very much narrowed and limited, and that will mean that a number of people in Great Britain, unless they are properly nourished by news and information from the Government, will believe that the Government are pulling their punches in assisting


Russia because it is Russia. I overheard a conversation on a bus yesterday between two working men, one of whom said, "Now we shall see whether the British Government prefer to fight the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Now we shall see where their real interests and their real affections are."
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. It was an exceedingly clever statement, a very difficult one to make, but made with great wisdom and with strength. I was a bit worried by the use of one sentence in which he said he would give all economic and technical assistance to the Soviet Union. I thought that was an under-statement which might be misunderstood in some quarters. I hope that an early opportunity will be given to the House of Commons to hear in Secret Session— this is an occasion for a Secret Session— how it will be possible for us to send. such assistance to the Soviet Union as will allay the natural suspicions of a great many people in this country. I am afraid a very large number of people who ought to be going all out will be subconsciously inhibited by the fact that the Soviet Union is now an Ally of ours, and that belief in this inhibition will become so widespread that very many people will cease to believe in the sincerity and earnestness of the Government's war effort.
That is precisely the matter which we ought to be discussing in Secret Session. We cannot discuss intelligently in the open how we are going to effect a second land front, because to try to effect a second land front is an urgent necessity. I do not believe that a mere air offensive will satisfy our people for very long. There will be a dreadful sense of frustration if the German military machine marches into Russia and subdues the Soviet Union, as it has subdued other countries, and all we can do in the meantime is to send bombing planes into Germany— a dreadful sense of frustration which will carry with it a more deadly menace to the war resolution of Great Britain. I hope, as we cannot discuss it here, that an early opportunity will be given in Secret Session to discuss the military possibilities, because all sorts of people, well informed and those with no knowledge of military strategy or of our resources, will say, "Here at last is an opportunity of ending the war very quickly. Here at last is a chance given

to us which we should use with resolution and imagination." But the moment will pass, and generalisations such as we have had from the Foreign Secretary are, I suppose, all that he can give us. Some of his sentences seemed to me almost as turgid as passages in "Mein Kampf." I do not blame him, because it is impossible for him to be more concrete, but I implore the Government to realise that the absence of imaginative military exploits at this moment may be interpreted by the people of Great Britain as reluctance on the part of the Government to come speedily to the aid of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Henry Strauss: A plea was made by the Prime Minister in his broadcast on Sunday, and it has been repeated by the Foreign Secretary to-day, to regard the great event which has happened from the standpoint of strict realism. I am sure that that appeal is the right one and that every Member of the House will respond to it. The Foreign Secretary spoke of difficulties which have prevented collaboration between this country and Russia, but he did mention, perhaps naturally, the very considerable aid which the Russian Government, through the Communist parties in various countries, have been giving to the enemy. It was mentioned a little in the speech of the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). More important, perhaps, than the strikes which the Communists have tried to bring about in our munitions industries are the strikes which they have successfully achieved in the munition industries in the United States. I hope very much that the great event which has now happened will cause the Communist party to receive different orders in the United States, but if we are to adopt an attitude of strict realism, let us at least be free from the absurdities which have been put before the House by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I thought the most optimistic thing I ever heard in the House was the assumption by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that he might get a straight answer from the Communist party. Needless to say, his attempt failed.
But, whatever else it is possible to maintain, it is not possible to maintain that Russia has shown a far-sighted opposition to Hitler throughout this war.
To a large extent we are ready to let bygones be bygones and, as long as Russia is fighting with its forces against Germany, for so long we will collaborate fully and to the utmost of our ability, because it is to the interest of both countries to defeat the greatest menace in the world, the armed might of Germany. But do not let us make the sort of mistake that was suggested by the hon. Member for West Fife, which might be followed misguidedly by our propaganda, by saying things, just because Russia is now fighting Germany, which will do us great injury throughout the world. The hon. Member had the effrontery to speak of the Baltic States as joining the Soviet Union. Perhaps he relies on the acts of Parliaments nominally elected by universal suffrage, but he failed to mentioned that the only candidates permitted in the elections were candidates of the Communist party, and that the elections in the Baltic States before they "joined the Soviet Union," as he put it, were indistinguishable in principle and practice from the elections held from time to time by Hitler for the Reichstag. Let us by all means do everything we can to support the Soviet Union in its fight against the armed might of Germany, but do not let us, however tempted, try for one moment to gloss over the crimes which in the past their Government have committed, because that will do us the greatest injury throughout the world.
I would only point out, further, how very recent is this hostility of Russia to this country. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) mentioned a conversation which he overheard on a bus which showed how far Communist propaganda had already gone in this country. We had another example the other day in the resolution of the Annual Conference of the National Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which repeated the nonsense of the People's Convention. We must beware that we do not gloss over facts that are notorious in this country and in America. There is no need to do so. We have here a people absolutely united in its fight against the armed might of Germany, and a unanimous determination to continue that fight until that armed might is crushed, and crushed for ever. I think it was the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) who, during the speech of the right hon. Member

for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), when he said, "At last we have the Member for West Fife with us," asked "How much is that worth?" The remarks of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) increased my doubts on that subject.
It is possible by mistakes in propaganda to lose an immense force which is at present supporting this country. It is also entirely unnecessary. Germany, as a part of its attack upon this country, has attacked Russia. The Prime Minister was completely right in his statement last Sunday that the attack on Russia menaced this country and the United States. Let us follow the Prime Minister's example of sticking to realism and not glossing over the past, even the recent past, of the Soviet Union. As late as the thirteenth of the present month, when warnings of the impending conflict between Germany and Russia were common in this country, the Russian wireless thought fit to attack such rumours and to associate them with an implied personal attack on the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to whom a tribute was paid by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to-day. That broadcast started:
Before the arrival of Sir Stafford Cripps in London, and in particular after his arrival, rumours have been spread about the proximity of war between Soviet Russia and Germany.
The Russian Government went on, after thus attributing that outcrop of rumours to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, to suggest that they were put about by enemies of the Soviet Union. We all rejoice that at last the Russian people have apparently decided to defend their liberties against the greatest menace that has ever threatened them and the rest of the world, and as long as they do that this country will wholeheartedly cooperate.

Mr. A. Edwards: You say they have had no liberties.

Mr. Strauss: They may have hopes of liberty. But it would be as wrong for me to deal with the internal affairs of Russia as it would be for the Russians, through the Communist party, to attempt to deal with our internal affairs. The only thing I am anxious about is that nothing should be said by a statesman of this country or on the B.B.C. which condones


in any way the past actions of Russia in its aggression against the Baltic States.

Mr. Mander: I could not help wondering when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) was speaking whether it was altogether reasonable to prejudge at this very early stage the attitude of the Communist party in this country towards the new state of affairs. I think they ought to be allowed time to get their breath and seriously to consider what their position is, without our going back too much upon what we all know has happened in the past.

Mr. H. Strauss: They have not waited to get their breath. Already, yesterday, they put out an announcement associating the attack upon Russia with the dirty work that had been going on since the arrival of Hess in this country. When my hon. Friend asks us to give the Communist party a chance, it is only fair to point out that the Communist party in this country did not wait to think the position out before making that announcement.

Mr. Mander: I think they must have been out of breath, and I am prepared to wait until they have had time to give the matter proper and serious consideration and to let us know where they do stand, which I imagine will not be the position which they occupied a week ago. In his speech to-day the Foreign Secretary paid a well-deserved tribute to the Polish Government in the very difficult position in which they find themselves, in view of the struggle that is going on. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will, during the coming weeks and months, use all his diplomatic and persuasive abilities for the purpose of trying to reconcile those two great countries, Poland and Soviet Russia. Their differences and difficulties are obvious and well known to us, and he would be rendering a very great service to the Allied cause, to the destruction of Nazism and the promotion of the future happiness of Europe, if he were able, as I believe he well might be, with good will on both sides, to arrange some sort of understanding or accommodation between those two great countries. The question also arises whether there happens to be in Russia at the present time any number of Allied subjects, prisoners of war or otherwise,

who might be available if released for the purposes of the common effort. I do not know whether there are any considerable numbers, but it is a matter to which I am sure my right hon. Friend will give attention.
Lastly, I am very glad that the Government have come to the decision which they have taken, and have made it known at the earliest possible moment, and, above all, that they have acted wholeheartedly. One of our great mistakes in the past in our relations with Russia has been hesitancy, a holding off, taking the attitude, "You are not like other people." I am very glad to see that that attitude has now gone. We could not have acted more reasonably and generously in the circumstances, and I hope that that spirit will be recognised. No doubt Russia has made great mistakes in foreign affairs, but there are other countries which have made great mistakes too, and are suffering as a result. Let us hope now, that with united effort and forces, we shall be able to put an end to this monster in Central Europe and prevent it from ever raising its head again.

Mr. Granville: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I hope that the Debate will not end on a note of ideological differences. For weeks past, the Goebbels propaganda machine has been working on this aspect of affairs day and night. It suggested that there were differences in America and very considerable differences of opinion in this country. It played on the Hess affair and used all its technique of power politics. I hope that this House will not fall into the error of assisting that propaganda.
I have risen to make one or two observations, but primarily to pay my tribute to the Prime Minister for his broadcast on Sunday night. When we heard the news on Sunday morning that Russia had been attacked by Nazi Germany, we remembered the general political atmosphere created by propaganda; and then later we listened to the Prime Minister. I thought it was the finest broadcast that the right hon. Gentleman had ever made. It was one of his greatest because, in that moment, he gave us his highest qualities of leadership when he told the country and everybody in the world where this country and the War Cabinet stood. I would pay my tribute to the right hon.


Gentleman for the way, and for the speed, with which he conveyed that information to the people of the world. At nine o'clock on Sunday night he scotched the whole campaign and intrigue of the Goebbels propaganda machine for the past three weeks. We often criticise the Minister of Information in this country, and no doubt, in the Debate on propaganda, hon. Members will have had a good deal to say, but the Prime Minister rose to the occasion with magnificent leadership and showed the finest propaganda of which belligerent democracy is capable.
The Foreign Secretary made one announcement. He said that we were going to send economic and, in the widest sense, military experts to assist Russia in her fight against Nazi Germany. I hope the Government will remember the vital importance of speed. Everybody hopes that Russia will defeat Germany, but the whole might, power, weight and concentrated striking force of the Nazi war machine is being hurled against Russia at the present time. In the next few vital hours and days we can lend the maximum help possible to Soviet Russia. I hope the Government will remember that help given now is worth ten times the value of help given in several weeks' time. The experts should be got to Russia at the earliest opportunity. Germany has war on two fronts. In modern war, airpower is a vital factor and I hope that speed will be remembered by His Majesty's Government. Every bomb dropped upon German communications and German industrial and military targets now is worth ten times the same bombs dropped in two or three weeks' time. I hope we shall have a propaganda campaign on all fronts and that the whole striking force of this country will be concentrated upon giving assistance to Russia now.
The attempted invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany is a warning to this country. I hope we shall work day and night to intensify our war production and that those who have obstructed the war effort in the factories will now give us their fullest co-operation, whether they be shop stewards or officials or misunderstandings of any kind. I hope they will help this country to produce day and night the vital war armaments, which we

shall use when the day comes on which this island has to fight the greatest fight in its history. I emphasise again to His Majesty's Government the need for speed as the vital factor. I hope they will remember the vital lessons of the last 20 months and apply them.

Mr. Price: As one who saw Russia during the last war at close grips with the enemy on the Eastern front and who has been gravely disappointed at the role of Russia in the present war up till now, I confess that the news on Sunday morning of Russia's stand against German demands, whatever they were, was a very great relief. I always felt there was a point beyond which Russia could not possibly recede. Those who knew Russian history and traditions must have known that she would never tolerate the Ukraine falling into the hands of a foreign Power or of a puppet Government under the control of a foreign Power. Her history and tradition came from the South-West. At a time when Moscow was little known, the Ukraine was the centre of Russian culture. I felt that the time would come, if Hitler failed to play his cards well in the attempt to get control of Russia, when he would be forced to strike at this heart of Russian culture and tradition. It is unfortunate indeed that during the last 18 months Russia should have adopted a neutral role, and made the way of Anglo-Russian relationships a difficult and chequered one. There is probably no plant in our foreign relationships which requires more tender cultivation than Anglo-Russian relations. We have, alas, all through the last century at various periods, had hostilities with Russia; the Crimean war, the Russo-Turkish war, when Lord Beaconsfield sent the British Fleet into the Sea of Marmora to defend Turkey against Russia, on the Afghan frontier, and in central Asia. Throughout that period there was potential Anglo-Russian hostility which sometimes broke out into open war. That was broken during the last war, when Russia was on our side.
But in a way we had no reason to be too disappointed when at the outbreak of this war we found Russia not only neutral, but neutral with a latent hostility towards us. For, the tradition of Russian Government has been that of dictatorship,


both under Czarist rule and again since the revolution. The whole tradition of Russian government has been quite different from that of this country, and there has throughout her history been a tendency for Russia to co-operate with the dictators of Central Europe, of which the Holy Alliance between Russia, Prussia and Austria last century was only an example. But just as Napoleon, when he made his agreement with Alexander I at Tilsit, found that the agreement did not last very long and that once more Russia and the dictator of that day in Europe were at death grips, followed by the march on Moscow and the fall of Napoleon, so we may hope to-day that what has happened may be a harbinger of something better to come. Dictators have a way of falling out. They have fallen out now.
It is a difficult task indeed to convince Russia of the sincerity of this country, but I feel that the speech of the Prime Minister broadcast on Sunday has gone a very long way in that direction. I have had some experience in dealing with Russians, and it has always convinced me that plain speaking is the best possible way of dealing with them and that they have a latent respect for Englishmen, for the simple reason that we do, in the main, speak our minds. We may have been stupid in our handling of our relations with Russia during the last 20 years— stupid almost to the point of criminal folly—but through it all, in spite of all that has happened, there has been a latent respect for us when we have spoken clearly. The Prime Minister did speak his mind clearly. He did not hide anything either of his past convictions or his past attitude to Russia. I am sure that will be appreciated in Moscow.
Now we must tackle a very difficult task, that of trying to co-ordinate between this country and Russia our propaganda aims in this war. It is no easy task. I do not agree, and I do not think many hon. Members of this House will agree, with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) in the remarks he made indicating that propaganda is not a major weapon in this war, and indicating too that there are no people in Germany who can be appealed to by propaganda and whose war effort cannot be weakened. Just as I believe that if we can, we should get an agreement with Russia to enable us to

co-operate in war aims and propaganda, so I believe that if we do so, it will have a tremendous effect in undermining the morale of the German people and weakening their war machine. Ever since the revolution Russia has aimed at keeping out of any international struggle of this kind in order that she could develop her own particular form of society, but we must not forget that Russia has shown, during the short time in which she cooperated with us at Geneva in the League of Nations, that she is capable of rising out of her pure insularity and of cooperating in an international system which is not necessarily the system which she sponsored at the outbreak of the revolution. With these thoughts in our minds, therefore, we should, I think, redouble our efforts—and great efforts they must be—to give Russia every possible assistance on the Western front to help her in the East, as she helped us when the Germans were within a few miles of Paris in the last war. We must redouble our efforts not only in the military sphere but also in the sphere of propaganda, in order to organise a solid front on the war aims of our two great countries.

Major Vyvyan Adams: I shall not keep the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than a very few moments; I understand he has come to ask us for a very large sum of money. His appetite is very much like Hitler's, since it has to be sated or else his patience becomes exhausted. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who made such an interesting speech earlier to-night, said that Russian action had been justified when, in the assault on Finland, they took steps to block the road to Leningrad. This is the only debating point I want to make to-day; I think it is a serious one, and it is this: If the Russian action was justified against Finland, by the same line of argument we should, I suppose, have been equally entitled to block the German road to the Channel by invading Holland and Belgium before Germany did. If the hon. Member reads what I say, I would like him to remember that you cannot repudiate in practice the main principles for which you are supposed to be fighting.
The other thing I wish to say, with great respect, is directed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich


(Mr. H. Strauss), who made such a very subtle speech a little time ago. I hope he will not object to my saying that I do not think his speech was a very helpful one. Our memories are not nearly so short that we have forgotten already the many regrettable things that have happened in Russia over the last two decades. While I was listening to my hon. Friend enumerating the sins and mistakes which he alleged the Russians have committed I could not help wondering whether it might not be about him that the legendary conversation in the motor omnibus occurred. If we are going to indulge in recriminations about the past at this grand climacteric, as the Prime Minister so rightly describes it, we have only to recall how we ignored Russia at the time of Munich, and the response— or lack of it—to the Russian suggestion of a conference after the German invasion of Prague. With great respect to my hon. Friend, let me say that there are occasions when the performances of skilful lawyers are more intellectually admirable than politically helpful, a lesson which was never learned, I regret to say, by a Foreign Secretary who had very intimate dealings with Russia—Sir John Simon, as he then was.
We could all waste time, and a very great deal of time, by saying how cordially we detest Communism. If I had chosen, I have no doubt I could have unleashed the most violent language about Communism, but that does not really matter to-day. I suggest that it has not really mattered for the last 10 years, since the Russians stopped industriously interfering with the internal affairs of other States by perpetual Communist propaganda. All that really matters to-day was expressed ably in the final sentences of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich. To-day the interests of Great Britain and Russia do not clash; they have not done so for many years now. The Foreign Secretary made the same statement to-day in his speech, and the plain, simple unadorned fact is this, that it is in the interests of the Russian and the British peoples that the German nation should be defeated and its dominion disintegrated. I thought that when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made a plea for a Secret Session on more recent events, and the possible immediate future,

he was on very strong grounds. I myself think that this would be one of the rare occasions when a Secret Session could be not only excused, but strongly justified, because here one must pick one's words very carefully.
The present moment seems to be a superb opportunity for the strongest possible offensive action against Germany. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will pay attention, as I am going to hint more than I can actually say. I leave it to him to infer what I mean. It is quite impossible for any Member of the House, in public and open Session, to define the quality of that offensive action. We cannot say to-day, because it would be the height of indiscretion, whether it should be limited, for example, to the air weapon. All that could be said openly about this was well, and indeed perfectly, said in the Prime Minister's great and unsurpassable broadcast on Sunday night. I think it was much easier for the Prime Minister to say those things than is commonly recognised. Although 20 years ago the Prime Minister may have used very interesting language about the manner in which the Russian nation was being governed by the Bolshevik rulers, I do not forget that for the last half dozen years the Prime Minister has striven consistently to bring Russia into active co-operation with the comity of nations. He was foremost in the days of the Chamberlain pre-war administration in trying to persuade the Government so to wield their foreign policy that Russia could be brought into the collective peace front. The German war machine, as the Prime Minister truly said, is attacking the Russian people. Their danger is our danger; our victory—and heaven send it may come sooner than we dared to hope a few days ago—will be theirs.

Mr. Tinker: During the whole of last week I wondered what would be the development of the German-Russian issue. I wanted, in my heart, a clash to take place. I felt that it would not happen, that it would, in some way or other, be smoothed over. I was delighted on Sunday morning when I heard that Germany had declared war on Russia, because I felt that the time had come when something like that ought to happen to get the world into its proper


alignment. 1 took confidence and courage from it in this way. Hitler has made a bold move, one meant to achieve victory very quickly, or one meaning ultimate defeat. I asked myself the question as to what had caused him to take this step. It must be because of distress, either in himself or in Germany, and that our war effort was having more effect on the German people and Hitler than we realised. Therefore he had to take some other bold measure to help himself out of the difficulty. That is why I took encouragement from that, because I had had in my mind the thought that the war might go on for years, we defending ourselves and trying to survive the terrible ordeal of being starved out. Secondly, I have always had a great leaning towards Russia. I wanted Russia to align themselves with us, because, whatever else may have happened, Russia has tried to bring about a better set of conditions under their present regime than existed under the Czarist regime. With the knowledge in my mind that the Russian people were trying to uplift themselves and bring themselves closer to the European standard of life, they have always had my sympathy. I had hoped that we might range ourselves alongside them at some future date. Now it has come.
I wish to say to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) that I wish he had not made the speech he has delivered. I know that in matters like this there are times when we all feel keenly about what has happened in the past, but, when a major issue comes before us, that transcends all other things, and it is as well for the moment to try and forget what has moved our emotions to get the full benefit of what is happening now. I do not want one word to go from this Chamber that might in any way discourage Russia in the severe ordeal which they are facing. That is why I want to see all the strength possible in the war effort, because complete victory means as much to us as to Russia.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I intervene to say this to my hon. Friend? I do not differ from him at all in my desire to avoid recriminations about the past. What I am most anxious about is this, that we should not, for that reason, allow ourselves to say over the wireless or elsewhere anything that might appear to condone the action which Russia took in the

Baltic States. That would do us an injury not only now but in the future.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member is quite right in putting his point of view, but I am anxious, as he is, for united effort, and I do not want one word to be said which might retard it at all. Just a word to the Foreign Secretary. I have complete confidence in those who are controlling our war machine. What I do hope is that whatever can be done to strike with all our might at Germany will be done. It has been said that in the past we have made mistakes, that we have not put out our whole efforts when other countries have been involved. On this occasion it is a supreme issue, and we must take tremendous risks to hamper Germany all we can. I do not want a Secret Session to discuss that. I have complete confidence in the Government. I want the Government to know that men like myself are behind them in whatever risks they may take that will help us in that way, so that once and for all we may crush the Nazi machine. In conclusion, I am very glad indeed at something which I think will mean a speedy termination of the war.
Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1941.

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Committee may recall that on 6th February last, before the close of the last financial year, I moved two Votes of Credit: a Supplementary Vote for £600,000,000 for 1940–41, and a Vote for £1,000,000,000 as a first instalment of the provision to be made for war expenditure during the present year. As that Vote is now approaching exhaustion, I have to ask for a further grant. For reasons which I will give, I suggest that the Committee should again vote a sum of £1,000,000,000. There is, of course, nothing magical, or necessary, about the figure of £1,000,000,000. It is a convenient one, because, at the current rate of expenditure, it would last about three months. I have also on past occasions referred to it as the highest figure for which I thought it right to ask at one time. If conditions alter and a different sum seems more appropriate, I shall ask the House for whatever sum the occasion demands. In any event, it will be necessary to come to the Committee again in the autumn for a further grant.
I told the Committee in February that I could not then forecast the rate of expenditure in the early months of 1941. The position is that up to Saturday last, 21st June, we had issued some £810,000,000 of that sum. If expenditure goes on at its recent rate, the Vote will be exhausted in the early part of July. Over the five weeks up to 21st June, our average rate of war expenditure has been about £72,000,000 a week, which is equivalent to a daily rate of about £10,250,000. That figure is slightly less than the figure of £10,500,000 which I gave to the Committee in February as the then current expenditure. I should make it clear that the small reduction has occurred, not on the Fighting Services, but on the Miscellaneous War Services, such as the Ministry of War Transport, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Home Security, and the cost of evacuation and emergency hospitals, financial assistance to our Allies, and payments in respect of war damage, which account for £2,250,000 a day, as compared with £2,500,000 a day in February.
The Committee will realise, of course, that expenditure on this group of services must vary considerably from week to week, and the fact that it has been

recently on a lower scale does not mean that it will not have to be increased at some future time. It is also important to note that the figures that I have given mean, when compared with those that I gave in February, a further increase in the rate of expenditure on the war effort at home. Our foreign expenditure has fallen, but domestic expenditure has increased sufficiently to counterbalance that reduction. The supplies which the United States Government so generously send us are now available under the Lease and Lend Act, and, of course, they fall outside this figure of our expenditure. Thus, the expenditure on our war effort must be reckoned as £10,250,000 a day together with the invaluable and increasing help which we are receiving from the United States Government. I say "increasing help," because as the Committee will realise, it has taken a little time to get the machinery working under the Lease-Lend Act, and some further time inevittably elapses before orders placed are converted into actual supplies and brought to account.
This Vote of Credit is available only for our war services. If we include the other services of the State—the service of the Debt and the Civil Votes, including our social services—we are spending approximately at the rate of rather over £12,000,000 a day, or about £4,400,000,000 a year. It is sums like these, and the fact that since the beginning of the war this country has had to find in all— and we do not shrink from it— over £6,000,000,000, that justify the hard course we have recently taken in the Budget. It is imperative that such huge sums should be wisely spent and that not a penny should be wasted. On this aspect I do not think I can add anything to the fairly full explanation I gave on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, on 22nd May, except to reiterate my hope that all Departments will realise, and act on, the constant necessity for the avoidance of waste and extravagance. It is also imperative that private civilian consumption should be cut to the limit, and that every penny possible should be saved and lent to the State. It is too early in the financial year to attempt any full comparison of the out-turn of the year with the estimates that I made on both sides of the account in my Budget speech. On the expenditure side, we shall, of


course, provide without stint whatever sums are necessary to support the provision of munitions and other war services, and the question will be, as hitherto, not what amount of money we shall provide, but how we shall provide what is necessary.
Taxation for the year is settled by the Budget. As to the balance which has to be borrowed, the methods by which it is raised and its cost to the State are matters which arc always very present to my mind. We shall strenuously endeavour to continue to borrow only by such methods as are consistent with a sound financial and economic basis for our war economy, and we shall continue to borrow as cheaply as possible. I think I can say that, so far this year, our borrowing policy has been successful. During the weeks succeeding those for which I gave figures when I opened my Budget, the larger investors have subscribed on an average £25,000,000 a week and the small investors £14,300,000 a week to the various forms of loans now on issue. This average weekly total of £39,300,000 is over 30 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for the months preceding the Budget, and no less than 82 per cent. higher than the weekly average during the first year of the War Savings Campaign.
I realise that this increase is in some measure due to the fine response made to London's War Weapons Week, and that it affords no ground for complacency, which certainly does not exist among those who are responsible for the War Savings Campaign. Nevertheless, it is indeed right to remember that, with the exception of London, every large centre of population in England had held its war weapons week by the beginning of April and before the period to which these figures relate. Further, even if we are not able to avoid a drop, for the time being, from the recent high level of subscriptions, I am still confident that we shall be able to achieve an increase in our rate of genuine savings which will fulfil the expectations upon which I based my Budget. War weapons weeks are perforce coming to the end of their successful career, as by the end of the month there will hardly be a town or village in the Kingdom which has not held one. The savings movement is not allowing the enthusiasm which they have

raised to grow cool as it is about to launch a new drive designed this time to strengthen and expand the net-work of national savings groups with which it has covered the country and to increase the rate of savings by individuals.
We have so recently fully discussed these matters and kindred subjects that I will add nothing further to-day, but I hope brevity on this occasion will not be taken as any sign that these matters are not vital to our war effort. This further vast sum will, I know, willingly be voted. It is indeed, one more earnest of our determination to make any sacrifice and to bear burdens, however heavy, until victory is assured.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: We have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with attention, and, I think I may say on behalf of the whole House, support. It will be reflected by a unanimous decision in favour of this Vote of Credit. There are only two things that it is necessary for me to say. In the first place, I am not sure that we all fully realise that what has happened in the last two or three days, so far from reducing in any way our need to spend to the utmost in the national effort—which is bound to be reflected in national finance—has made it all the more imperative that we should use every ounce of our energy in fighting the foe at the moment. The time when Hitler is engaged in war in the East is obviously the time when we should strike most fiercely both in the West or in any other field of campaign where we can hit him, because he will be more embarrassed to-day than he has been in the past. We do not know what the future may bring forth, but certainly this is the psychological moment at which to put forward every effort in order to destroy his war campaign.
The second point relates to the finances of the Scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget told us that he was reckoning upon an extra £300,000,000 out of genuine savings, and the statement which he has made to-day, so far as it goes, is satisfactory. But that, again, would be a very poor thing if it meant that we rested content upon the achievements we have already reached. I hope that everything possible will be done to induce the average man, and not only the


average man, but every man and woman who can possibly save, to invest in some form of War Loan or Savings Certificates to-day. At this juncture it is essential, if these finances are to be carried through to the end, that genuine saving should be at its maximum amount I am happy to be able to say this, speaking with a knowledge of three places with which I am associated. My own constituency is in two different places. It is partly in the City of Edinburgh and partly in the County of Midlothian and both in Edinburgh and Midlothian the people have done exceedingly well in their war weapons weeks. The place in which I live in Surrey has also rendered a good account of itself during the last two or three weeks. I know what my hon Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) sometimes says about war weapons weeks, and there is something in his pont of view with which the Chancellor will agree, to the effect that what is of importance is the amount of genuine savings rather than the total, which may be, I will not say inflated, but at any rate swollen by figures which are not wholly genuine savings. I feel certain that the Committee will do what if can to encourage genuine savings and make people feel that to spend money wastefully on themselves, money which they could possibly do without spending, is a crime against the prosecution of the war, the liberties of the people of this country and against unanimity. To-day is the time when we have to put forward our maximum war effort to bring this terrible and wicked slaughter of mankind to an early end. That can only be brought about by bringing down the Hitler Government and making the world safe again from a menace of that kind for years.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses,

beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolution to be reported; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.'"— [Sir K. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — BANK OF ENGLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Tinker: I take this opportunity of bringing forward again a matter raised by me in a Question which appeared on the Order Paper on 12th June. It related to the Bank of England and was as follows:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance to our war effort of proper control of monetary policy and of the public anxiety in this respect, he will make a full statement of the existing relations between the Government and the Bank of England.
In reply the Chancellor said:
While fully agreeing on the importance to our war effort of proper control of monetary policy I am not aware of any prevalent public anxiety in this respect. There is, as has frequently been stated in this House, very close and constant co-operation between the Bank of England and myself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1941; cols. 340ߝ341, Vol. 372.]
Can we be enlightened as to what that co-operation is, or is it too delicate a matter for any information about it to be given to the House of Commons? After all, we have voted a credit of £1,000,000,000 to-day; I expect there will be some monetary transaction somewhere and, I take it, that it will be through the Bank of England. I do not think it ought to be a secret as to how that will be done. I have tried to get to know something about the Bank of England and have looked up "Whitaker's Almanack,"


which is a kind of dictionary on all matters. There I found that the Governor is Mr. Montagu Norman—as everybody knows—and that there are 23 other Directors. It is stated that the amount of Government securities in the Bank is £147,812,838—I do not know what form these securities take and I do not think anybody else outside the Treasury knows —and that the amount of capital is £14,553,000. It also states that in 1938 a dividend of 12 per cent. had been declared.
I am anxious to know what are the actual transactions carried out by this body and whether we have any control over them? Do we ask them to lend us money and, if so, do they stipulate the percentage at which they will lend it? If they refuse to lend the money can we take it from them? These are points which are agitating my mind. Other Members of the House have said to me that it is no use attempting to get Questions about the Bank of England on the Order Paper. I have tried a number of times and by persistence I finally managed it, although it took a long time to get it through. This has satisfied me that there is some objection in giving to the House anything like a full statement on this matter. Much money is involved in this war effort and I wonder what kind of monetary transactions will take place. I also wonder whether this dividend of 12 per cent. will be increased.
The Financial Secretary ought to let us know something about this matter. I hope he will take it from me that it is in the interests of the nation that I am asking these questions. When I am addressing war weapons week meetings I want to be in a position to tell people how the money is to be raised. I have been asked whether the money raised is transferred to the Bank of England and whether they get a percentage of the money that is lent to the Government? I have not been able to answer these questions. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will take this opportunity of telling us what the position is: whether Mr. Montagu Norman and his 23 Directors make a good thing out: of dealing with the Government or whether the transactions which take place with the Government are carried out in the same way as in the case of ordinary business people.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): If I may briefly answer the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend's reply of 12th June was comprehensive. The hon. Gentleman has said there is great difficulty in getting a Question on the Order Paper and I congratulate him on having succeeded in doing it, because the rules and regulations which govern our procedure for the putting down of Questions are always strictly interpreted and, of course, the Bank of England is not an institution over which the Government have a responsibility in the same way as we here have a responsibility for instance for the Ministry of Health or the War Office. The Bank of England is a private concern and obviously it is much more difficult to get Questions asked in this House about private concerns than it is about Government Departments. However, the hon. Gentleman did put a Question down and my right hon. Friend in his reply repudiated the suggestion that there was any public anxiety about the relationship between the Government and the Bank of England. That was my own view as well.
I must say that I have not heard anything about great public anxiety anywhere at the present time and, if there is any, I hope it will hereafter cease because there is no cause for any anxiety whatever. The Chancellor said there was very close and constant co-operation between the Bank of England and himself. The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions to which the answers, I agree, would be interesting. He asked about the position of the Directors, the Government securities that were held by the Bank, the amount of dividend paid in 1938 and the like, but they are not questions which can properly be addressed tome. I do not know in any detail how the Directors of the Bank of England manage their affairs. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to let him know about this afterwards, but I think he will find that, if he wants to know more about the general arrangements of the Bank of England, there are other publications which go into them in greater detail than does "Whitaker's Almanack." I imagine that a great many writers on financial matters have given their own views as to what they think are or ought to be the relations between the Government and the central bank, and I have no


doubt that a whole series of books has been written in which these matters have been investigated by students of these affairs; but I do not think it would be reasonable for me to start an impromptu lecture on the subject.
As far as I know, there is nothing particularly secret about the Bank of England. The Bank of England is not a new institution, it has figured very largely in the financial history of our country, and its records are there to be read by those who are interested, and the readers can make their own deductions there from. It is true that the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have a very close connection in the way of co-operation with various branches of the Bank, and this is particularly the case in war time. The hon. Member may have noticed the great number of things in respect of which the Bank's services are being used by the Government, but when he asks whether we can take over money from the Bank, if the Bank will not lend it to us, that is not quite the sort of question which I would like to answer. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that by law the Bank is not allowed to lend money to the Government without the express permission of the House. If the hon. Member wishes to take his studies further into the general reasons for the Consolidated Fund Bill, the clauses of which are very technical and time-honoured in their form, he will -find that those very provisions in each Consolidated Fund Bill passed by the House are passed in order that the Bank can lend money on Ways and Means. A Ways and Means Resolution has just been passed by the House arising from the passage in Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit. Under the financial procedure, Supply is voted by the House on Report after going through the Committee stage, and it is then necessary to have a Ways and Means Resolution in order to introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill, without which Bill and the powers which Parliament gives therein it would not be possible for the Bank to lend money to the Government.
As to the means of keeping in touch with the Bank of England, I can only refer the hon. Member to a reply given

by Lord Simon on 21st November, 1939, when he said that the Chancellor—and this applies to all Chancellors, at any rate in war time—was in constant communication with the Bank of England, and especially so in war time; the methods of communication were mainly informal, and such as were most convenient from time to time. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that. The Chancellor cannot say that he will see the Governor, whoever it may be, at a certain time every day, or every other day, or, say, on Tuesday of each week. The matter must be arranged, in these difficult days, in an informal manner, whenever it is necessary to have these consultations.
With regard to the Bank rate, which is one of the points which the hon. Member has in mind, this might be a relevant matter on which to say something on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. As a matter of fact, I made a considered statement on the subject about a year ago in the House. The decision as to changing of maintaining the Bank rate is made by the Court of the Bank of England. It is the case, as was stated on 4th June, 1940, that the Chancellor has, under the Emergency Powers Regulations of May of last year, power to give directions to the Bank about the Bank rate, but up to now he has not had any reason for supposing that the situation required any such directions. As hon. Members will see, all this merely means that there must be very close contact between the Chancellor and the Bank of England. Of course, it is for the Chancellor and this House to frame their own financial policies, but it is not for the Chancellor to have to defend the action of an outside body, like the Bank of England, over which he has no control. It is obvious to all concerned that an ancient institution like the Bank of England is in a position to give certain advice to the Chancellor of the day. We are sometimes told in other connections that we do not take enough advice from outside people; at other times, we are told that we ought not to listen to outside people, and that we ought to make up our mind and go straight ahead; but I think that in difficult and technical problems a combination of both is useful, and that no harm is done by taking advice where we can find the best advice, although we must form our policy for ourselves and


defend it ourselves. I do not think there is any widespread anxiety on this question, and I should like to commend to the hon. Member's attention a quotation from the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry, which reported 10 years ago. Incidentally, the hon. Member will find a good deal of information about the Bank of England in that report. The committee referred to the Bank of England in terms which I think rather sum up the whole point which the hon. Member has in mind; they referred to it as
functioning solely in the public interest…entrenched at the centre of the struggle for profit, and with access to the arcana of the market, yet itself aloof, and untinged by the motives of private gain
Those are not my comments, but the comments of an important Committee, and they are comments which still hold good to-day, although they were made 10 years ago. The Committee was a very representative body, and it went into these matters at very great length. I am sorry I cannot carry the subject any further along the lines the hon. Member wants, beyond repeating the Chancellor's statement that there is very close and constant co-operation between the Bank of England and himself. It is obvious that, particularly in war time, constant contact has to

be established and it is at the present time very informal in order that, as I am sure hon. Members would desire, the best possible advice can be tendered from all quarters to my right hon. Friend so that he may come to the right decisions with regard to policy.

Sir Robert Tasker: Do I understand the Financial Secretary to say that the Bank of England cannot lend money to the Government without getting the permission of this House, because if so, that is a most extraordinary situation?

Captain Crookshank: That is what I was saying. By law the Bank of England is not allowed to lend without the express permission of Parliament, and Parliament gives that permission in each Consolidated Fund Bill in order that the Bank may lend to us on Ways and Means. That is the technical position under the law to-day. It is for that reason that we have to go through the process of Supply, Committee of Ways and Means, Consolidated Fund Bill; as the result of that the Bank may lend to the Government on Ways and Means in the way I have explained.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.